AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ in the form of direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to give adequate, effective and proper protection to the petitioner as and when required.
ii) Issue a writ in the form of direction directing the respondents 5 to 10 not to disturb the peaceful life of the petitioner and the local families."
Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a social worker and also an Environmentalist. The petitioner along with local residents near the property comprised in Sy. No. 184/05 of Eanjakad Village filed complaint against the illegal filling of wet land taking soil from the adjacent hill. The said property belongs to respondents 6 to 8. Respondents 6 to 8 are illegally filling the wet land near the hill by mining earth from the said hill without sanction from any authorities. Due to this illegal act of the respondents 30 Harijan families residing on the top of the hill and other 5 families residing on the other sides of the hill are in danger. In the rainy season if the lower portion of the hill is mined there is every possibility of soil erosion. They filed mass petitions before the authorities. There is threat to the petitioner, and, what is more the petitioner was manhandled and he was admitted in ICU. Petitioner apprehends threat from respondents 5 to 10. Hence the petition.
Today when the matter came up, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the party respondents denied the allegations. But, more importantly, the learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that the party respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. We record the said submission. Learned Government Pleader would submit that on the basis of the complaint a crime was registered, police enquired the matter. The respondents were arrested and released on bail. Investigation reveals that petitioner had gone inside the property where they are putting up a construction after getting permission. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not gone inside the property.
Whatever that be, we dispose of the Writ Petition (Civil) as follows:
We record the submission of the learned counsel for the party respondents that there will be no threat to the life of the petitioner from the party respondents. We, however, direct that, in case contrary to the assurance given to the Court petitioner complains of any threat to his life by respondents 5 to 10 before the first respondent, the first respondent will look into it and if the complaint is found to be genuine, he shall afford sufficient protection for the life of the petitioner against respondents 5 to 10. We make it clear that, we have not gone into the merits of the other allegations which have been raised by the petitioner against the party respondents. If the matter comes before any Court in a lis between the parties, that Court is free to decide the same untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment.