SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
LITTY MOL JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25363 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOMY K. JOSE, SHRI.MUHAMMED ANSHIF T.K.
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

A businesswoman's right to police protection upheld in the face of competition-related threats.

Headnote:The petitioner sought police protection citing obstruction from competing respondents and sought to continue an interim order previously granted by the court for such protection. The court found the interim order should be continued due to lack of appearance from respondents.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claimed business obstruction without opposition. (Para 1 , 3)
2. petitioner requested police protection for business. (Para 2)
3. court observed interim order should continue due to lack of opposition. (Para 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for a direction to afford police protection to the life, property and workmen of the petitioner.

2. Petitioner claims to be a business woman indulging in sale of frozen meats, meat products, fish, fruits and vegetables and other articles under the name and style 'St.Joseph Cold Storage' at Erattayar, Idukki. The business is claimed to be conducted in Building No.7-816 of Erattayar Grama Panchayath in accordance with the rules and regulations. Petitioner contends that she has obtained all the licences required under law and relies upon Ext.P1 to Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5 are obstructing the conduct of business as they are competitors in the same field of business. It is in such circumstance that the petitioner approached this Court seeking police protection after the police failed to act in accordance with law pursuant to Ext.P5 request.

3. Though notice to respondents 3 to 5 had been served, none appears on his behalf.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. On 10.07.2025, at the time of admission, this Court granted an interim order directing the first respondent to afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and her employees for a limited period. Since respondents 3 to 5 have not opposed the writ petition, I am of the view that the interim order dated 10.07.2025 ought to be continued.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and her employees from any illegal acts of respondents 3 to 5 or anybody acting under them, as long as the licences are valid. It is clarified that the protection need be afforded only when the petitioner intimates in writing about the existence of any imminent threat to her life or business.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top