SURESHKUMAR.N Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 4 to give necessary and adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s.Ganga Developers, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and respondent No.5 is a partner of M/s.Bhumi Homes. Petitioner and the fifth respondent had entered into Ext.P1 joint development agreement for the development of property owned by the firm of the fifth respondent, in a mutually beneficial manner, by constructing a multi-storied residential apartment complex. According to the petitioner, his firm had completed 98% of the work of the multi-storied apartments as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ext.P1 agreement. Subsequent to the work, the petitioner had requested the fifth respondent to pay the entire amount due to him for the work he had done for the fifth respondent's firm. But the fifth respondent and his partners are not willing to pay the amount due to him. Instead of paying the amount due to the petitioner, it is alleged that the fifth respondent came to the house of the petitioner on 25.2.2019 and directed the petitioner to execute certain documents that he had already prepared. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent had not even disclosed the nature of the documents proposed to be executed and therefore the petitioner expressed his inability to accede to his demand. It is stated that the fifth respondent left from the house of the petitioner with a warning that the petitioner will have to face severe consequences for the same and that the petitioner and his family are not in a position to live peacefully due to the frequent threatening of the fifth respondent and his henchmen.

(3.) The fifth respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner and fifth respondent were in good terms even prior to the filing of this writ petition and the above allegation has been raked up only to evade the submission of the statement of accounts and the payment of balance amounts that are due to the fifth respondent by the petitioner. It is contended that an amount of Rs.5.5 crores is due to the 5th respondent from the petitioner. To substantiate the contentions, Exts.R5(a) to R5(d) documents alleged to have been executed by the petitioner and the 5th respondent before SRO Balaramapuram on 11.3.2019 are produced. According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, if at all the allegations of threat and intimidation on the part of 5th respondent are true, the petitioner would not have executed the above sale deeds.