Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19075
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, K.HARILAL, JJ
PONNAMMA JOHN – Appellant
Versus
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 30986/2011
Authorities must act promptly to protect individuals from verified threats, emphasizing public safety over procedural delays.
Headnote:
Protection - Police Protection - [] - The court directed immediate action for police protection based on submitted threats against the petitioner, focusing on public safety and enforcement of local regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a widow, sought police protection from her neighbors who were threatening her after she reported their illegal construction to the Panchayat, which did not respond promptly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that immediate relief was necessary to ensure the petitioner's safety and directed an inquiry into the threats posed by the respondents, without needing to verify the petitioner’s allegations beforehand.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to police protection due to threats from her neighbors following her complaint regarding their construction violations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that safety from threats is paramount and the authorities are obliged to respond to threats against citizens, allowing for immediate protective measures.
Final Decision: The court directed the first respondent to conduct an immediate inquiry and take necessary protective actions.
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The petitioner, a widow , has approached this court seeking police protection for her life and limbs from respondents 3 to 5 her neighbours. According to her, as she noticed that respondents 3 to 5 are constructing a building upon their property in gross violation of the Building Rules, she filed a complaint to the Panchayat. When it was noticed that the Panchayat was not taking any prompt action, she approached this court and filed a writ petition. The above writ petition was disposed of by this court directing the Panchayat to initiate appropriate action. The Panchayat accordingly took action against the party respondents. This antagonised the party respondents very much. They are now threatening the petitioner with danger to her life and limbs. The petitioner is under the constant fear on account of threats and the party respondents are every now and then showering abuses on her and dumping waste materials into her property. She has submitted Ext.P2 before the Superintendent of Police under copies to respondents 1 and 2. But respondents 1 and 2 have not so far taken any action.
2. As directed by us, Sri. Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and we have heard him also.
3. Having gone through the averments in the writ petition and the submissions of Sr.Latheesh Sebastian learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that it is not necessary that we should examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the petitioner. We are of the view that limited relief can be given to the petitioner even without issuing notice to the party respondents. The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.
The first respondent is directed to take up Ext.P2 immediately. The first respondent will conduct an immediate enquiry into Ext.P2. As part of the enquiry, the first respondent will either summon or meet the party respondents. If the enquiry reveals that there is truth in the averments contained in Ext.P2, the first respondent will take such action as is necessary for protecting the life and limbs of the petitioner. Action necessary for preventing the commission of offence against the petitioner by the party respondents will also be taken.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE.
dpk
