Kerala High Court
Josch Joseph @ Dominic Joseph vs The Superintendent Of Police on 7 November, 2024
W.P.(C)No.15349 of 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 15349 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
1 JOSCH JOSEPH @ DOMINIC JOSEPH
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. M.D. JOSEPH, MANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALAMPRA
P.O. KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM 686 518.
2 ADITH JOSHY DOMINIC,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. DOMINIC JOSEPH, MANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALAMPRA P.O. KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM 686 518.
BY ADVS.
JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SRI.VINO JOSE
SMT.TANYA JOY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KOTTAYAM 686 001.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KANJIRAPPALLY 686 507.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KANJIRAPALLY
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 507.
W.P.(C)No.15349 of 2020
2
2024:KER:87536
4 PM ABDUL SALAM,
AGED 62 YEARS
PM MEERAN, PARACKKAL HOUSE, PARATHODU P.O.
KANJIRAPPALLY 686 507.
5 V.S. AJMAL KHAN,
AGED 54 YEARS
VAALIKKAL VEEDU, KANJIRAPPALLY, 686 507.
6 V.S. SAJIMON,
VAALIKKAL VEEDU, KANJIRAPPALLY, 686 507.
7 V.S. HAFIS KHAN,
VAALIKKAL VEEDU, KANJIRAPPALLY, 686 507.
8 RIYAD SALAM,
PARACKKAL HOUSE, PARATHODU P.O. KANJIRAPPALLY,
686 507.
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 TO 3 - SRI.RAJEEV GEORGE,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.15349 of 2020
3
2024:KER:87536
P.M.MANOJ, J.
.........................................
W.P.(C)No.15349 of 2020
..................................................................
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
The 2nd petitioner is the partner of a super market by
name M/s Store 24 Fortune Retail Ventures. It is the case of
the petitioner that the petitioner along with the 2 nd petitioner
being the major share holder along with other partners avail
OD facility from South Indian Bank, Chingavanam Branch.
Though initial repayments were correct, later due to financial
crisis some latches occurred in repaying the loan.
2. Under such circumstances, the Bank treated the
loan as a non-performing asset. In that premise, the
respondents 4 to 8 who are no way connected directly with
the firm, however, representing other partners using some
dubious method, threatening the petitioner and his father
who is the 1st petitioner to repay the loan.
3. Under such circumstances, the petitioner
approached this Court for adequate and sufficient police
protection to the life and property as well as for the smooth
2024:KER:87536
functioning of the super market named Store 24 Fortune
Retail Ventures without obstructing the ingress and egress,
threat, obstruction and violents from respondents 4 to 8 and
their men.
3. When the matter was considered on 28.07.2020,
this Court was pleased to direct the 3 rd respondent to ensure
that the party respondents do not obstruct the ingress and
egress of the establishment run by the petitioners at
Kanjirappally.
It appears that in the light of such direction, sufficient
and adequate protection has been given, and no further
untoward incidents have been reported. Under such
circumstances, I make the order dated 28.07.2020 absolute,
and finding that no further orders are required, this writ
petition is closed.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ, JUDGE
Dxy
2024:KER:87536
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15349/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECONSTITUTE
PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 19.5.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.03.2020 IN WPC 8403/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED
FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.
37993/2020/K DATED 30.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED
30.06.2020 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE MOSQUE.
EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED
22.07.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
