Mr. A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. Petitioner filed this Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a mandamus or direction or order to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to provide adequate and sufficient and effective police protection to the Honble Justice N. Krishnan Nair (retired) who was a judge of this Honble Court immediately.

ii) The 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th and 6th respondents may be directed to file an action taken report on the issue before this Honble Court within a time frame fixed by this Honble Court.

iii) The 6th respondent District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram may be directed to visit the place of occurrence and he may be directed to visit the place of occurrence and he may be directed to file a report on the issue within a time frame fixed by this Honble Court.

iv) To direct the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to provide adequate and effective police protection to the individual judges in service and the judges retired in the entire state of Kerala.

v) Direct the 7th respondent to take further action in accordance with rules.

vi) The 5th respondent may be directed to take cognizance and further action on the issue in accordance with rules.

vii) Direct the 1st respondent to make effective rules for rendering effective police protection to the Judiciary and Judges in the State of Kerala.

viii) Issue such other orders/directions/reliefs as deemed fit and necessary and proper by this Honble Court on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case. "

2. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent on 28.10.2013, inter alia, stating that after directions were issued by this Court, meetings were held and appropriate directions have been issued to provide security to various authorities as stated in paragraph 5. It is further stated that at present about 127 Police Personnel are deployed for providing security to 72 judges, Members of Tribunals and Commissions and retired judges to avert any untoward incidents. That apart, sufficient security arrangements are provided to the members of Judiciary after assessing the local threat perceptions. Ext.R3(a) is the detailed list of the Members of Judiciary who are being provided security.

3. Having regard to the fact that necessary steps in this regard had been taken by the Government as stated in the affidavit, we do not think any further directions are required to be passed.

4. It is made clear that, as directed by this Court on 04.01.2011, the State Government should make a periodical review of the threat perception to the members of the judiciary and necessary measures shall be taken by the Government in this regard.

5. Taking on record the aforesaid affidavit, this writ petition is closed.