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) 6142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
V.P.JOY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15950 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.SYLESHWAREN NAIR, SMT.SWATHY KRISHNA, SHRI.B.REGHU KUMAR
For the Respondents: ADV. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Police protection is granted to ensure safety without interfering in civil disputes.

Headnote:The writ petition involves a claim for police protection under legal provisions concerning safety and property rights. The petitioner, a business proprietor, asserts harassment by his brother and nephew, prompting this case. The court determined the need for ongoing police oversight while maintaining respect for civil disputes. Consequently, police were instructed to act in case of threats to the petitioner, upholding public order without intervening in civil matters.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks protection due to business disputes. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court observes compliance with interim orders. (Para 4)
3. court issues final order for police protection. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking police protection for the life and property of the petitioner and his family members.

2. Petitioner claims to be the sole proprietor of a business by name ‘Valloran Wood Industries”. Petitioner contends that he has got all the necessary licences. In the meantime, according to the petitioner, he commenced another business by name ‘Ann Wood Industries’ along with his brother- the 5th respondent herein. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, and the 6th respondent, who is the son of the 5th respondent, started interfering. It is at this juncture that the petitioner approached this Court through this writ petition.

3. Though service has been completed on respondents 5 and

6, none appears on their behalf.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, this Court notices that when the matter came up for admission on 11.04.2025, an interim order was issued directing the 4th respondent to ensure that law and order is maintained in the petitioner’s locality without interfering in any civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. Pursuant to the above interim order, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the situation has been calm. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the interim order can be made absolute.

5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to maintain law and order in the petitioner’s locality, and in the event of any imminent threat to his life from any act of respondents 5 and 6, on being intimated of the same, the 4th respondent shall take appropriate steps to avert such a situation immediately. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not enable the 4th respondent to interfere in any civil dispute between the parties.

The writ petition is disposed of.

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