Court can deny writs aiming for protection when no imminent threat is established.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for a direction to afford adequate and effective Police protection to his life from the attacks of respondents 4 to 6.

2. Petitioner claims that he was serving as a District Officer Bearer and State Working Member of the Kerala Muslim Jamaath (Kanthapuram) and also runs an educational institution named 'MJS Edu Hub" having branches at various places. Petitioner alleges that a conference was decided to be conducted in the year 2025 by the Kerala Muslim Jamaath and thereafter, respondents 4 to 6 started harbouring certain animosity towards the petitioner, who was active in organizing the conference. Apprehending attacks and threats by respondents 4 to 6, petitioner approached the Police. Despite requests, no action has been initiated and hence the writ petition was filed.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 submitted that they have absolutely no intention to attack the petitioner. It was also submitted that, based on the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner, the police had called all of them to the Police Station and a settlement was even entered into, thereby allaying the fears of the petitioner. It was argued that thereafter the petitioner has taken a volte-face and approached this Court with this writ petition, obviously with mala fide intentions.

4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that on enquiry it was found that there was no personal enmity between respondents 4,6 and the petitioner, and that the dispute was due to an internal rivalry within the organisation and that the parties had settled the issues after they were called to the Police Station.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6, this Court is of the view that the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner has been resolved by the timely intervention of the police. Further, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 has also expressed that the said respondents have no intention at all to attack the petitioner. The instructions of the police also reveal that it was only an internal dispute among the members of an organization that had led to the filing of this writ petition.

6. In view of the above, the prayer sought for in this writ petition need not be granted as there is no existing threat. However, it need to be mentioned that, if in case the petitioner further apprehends any threat from respondents 4 to 6 in the future and if any intimation is given in that regard to the 3^rd respondent, necessary action will be initiated to avert such an apprehension.

With the above observations, the writ petition is closed.

Sd/-