SINZAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's father took on lease a shop room belonging to the 5th respondent. After the death of his father, the petitioner, as the legal heir, is continuing to conduct business in that shop room. The 5th respondent wants the petitioner evicted from the shop room. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent has sought the help of the 4th respondent for forcibly evicting the petitioner from the shop room. The petitioner submits that respondents 5 and 6 have forcefully removed the door of the shop room, in respect of which a complaint was filed by the petitioner before the Circle Inspector of Police, Central Police Station and no action is being taken in respect of the complaint. The petitioner has also filed a suit in which an injunction has been obtained against respondents 5 and 6. Since the 4th respondent has interfered with the civil disputes between the petitioner and 5th respondent, the petitioner has impleaded the 4th respondent also as a party to the said suit. The 5th respondent has violated the injunction order, also is the complaint raises by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, petitioner's life is under threat and he is not being able to conduct his business in the shop room peacefully because of the threat of respondents 5 and 6. It is the further contention of the appellant that, since the 5th respondent cut off the amenities to the shop room, petitioner was forced to approach the Accommodation Controller, who has directed the 5th respondent to restore the amenities which also the 5th respondent has not done. Therefore, the petitioner had restored the amenities on his own which also has been interfered with by the 5th respondent, is the allegation of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 4th respondent not to harass the petitioner any more; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 2 and 3 to give adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioner and to his shop room bearing No.XL 3839 of Kochi Corporation from the threat of the respondents 4 to 6 and their men; iii) direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take lawful action on Ext.P7 petition within a time frame manner;

(3.) COUNSEL for the 4th respondent submits that, the 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit controverting the allegations of the petitioner against the 4th respondent. According to him, he has not interfered with the disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. A complaint has been received from one Dr.V.M.Khallil, for investigation of which the petitioner was summoned, and the petitioner submitted that he has obtained an injunction order from the civil court. He took time to produce the injunction order, but he never produced the injunction order. Instead he has impleaded the 4th respondent also in the civil suit, is the contention raised. According to the 4th respondent, 4th respondent has nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, and the 4th respondent has never interfered with the dispute. But, he has only performed his official duties as an Assistant Commissioner of Police in his submission.