Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19601
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ
JAMES PHILIP – Appellant
Versus
THE MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS – Respondent
WP(C)/10667/2010
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE, SRI.A.V.JOJO, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
Personal safety and freedom to work can be protected through legal remedies, but must be contingent upon existing threats or claims.
Headnote:
Protection - Writs - Kerala High Court Sections - The court analyzed the provisions related to personal protection and employment freedom, concluding no ongoing threats existed after the settlement, effectively resolving the petitioner's grievances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought police protection and freedom to work without interference after losing a job abroad and facing threats from a bank representative due to a loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that a settlement had been reached and the alleged threats were retracted, thus no further issues remained to be addressed.
Issues: Whether the petitioner requires police protection and if his freedom to pursue employment is being infringed by the bank's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the threat was no longer valid following a settlement, the reliefs sought were unnecessary.
Final Decision: The writ petition was closed as the issue was resolved by mutual agreement.
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to provide necessary police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members and also ensure the peaceful life of the petitioner.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to ensure freedom to the petitioner to carry on the employment according to his wishes either in India or abroad without any interference whatsoever from the officials of Emirates Bank or their men and agents.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that petitioner was working abroad and he lost his job because of the global problem faced by thousands of non-resident Indians. He had availed a loan upon the instigation of the representative of Emirates Bank in Abudhabi. Petitioner was compelled to leave Abudhabi. Now, allegations are raised against the 4th respondent who claims to be the representative of Emirates Bank in South India. It is alleged that he is exerting threat towards the petitioner. Petitioner filed complaint.
WPC 10667/2010 -2-
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that there has been some settlement and pursuant to the same Rs.6,28,000/- has been paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that there will be no threat by the 4th respondent against the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that on account of the debt there was prohibition against the petitioner from entering or staying in Abudhabi and gulf countries. Now, in view of the arrangement which has been partly honoured by the petitioner, the said embargo has been lifted. We record the above submissions of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and close the writ petition.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS
