VIDHYADHARAN V Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRAFFIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 - police officials to afford protection to the petitioner against illegal, culpable and contumacious conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER resides on the first floor of a two storied building belonging to his father. The ground floor is let out on lease and third respondent is the Manager of the business conducted in the ground floor. The business of the 3rd respondent is a roadways service and in connection with that, vehicles come to the premises of the ground floor.

(3.) THIRD respondent has entered appearance and a counter affidavit has been filed. According to the 3rd respondent, petitioner's father has filed a petition for eviction and the attempt is to somehow throw the 3rd respondent out of possession. There is no need to arm the petitioner with an order of police protection. The allegations are false. If there is improper use of the tenanted premises by the 3rd respondent, the landlord shall certainly seek appropriate relief under the civil law. Learned Government Pleader submits that action has already taken to ensure that there is no obstruction to traffic in the locality. About the allegations of inclusion into the privacy, if there is commission of any criminal offence, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to respondents 1 and 2 whereupon they shall take necessary action in accordance with law, submits the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no specific direction need be issued. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed accepting the submission of the learned Government Pleader.