JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents

2 and 3 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioners from the illegal acts being committed by the 7^th respondent and his men, who are restraining the petitioners from parking their autorickshaws in three places mentioned in the writ petition.

2. The 2^nd petitioner is the owner and the 1^st petitioner is the driver of an auto-taxi which is operating in the Chalakkudy Municipality area. The 7^th respondent is preventing the 1^st petitioner from parking the said auto-taxi in three places mentioned in the writ petition. Even though the petitioners submitted a complaint before the 3^rd respondent, no action has been taken in the matter. The inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent and the additional 8^th respondent.

4. The principal dispute in the writ petition is the objection raised by the 7^th respondent regarding the parking of the petitioners' auto-taxi in three public places in the Chalakkudy Municipality.

9. Section 72 of the Keral