IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8657 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOE I MANGALY, JAKMIN HOUSE, KALLEKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 009. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, MAHESHWARI BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.8657 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is regarding the failure on the part of the 2nd respondent in issuing an “undetectable certificate”. 2. Facts of the case is that the petitioner claims to be the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. KL 09N 2002. According to the petitioner on 23.6.2007, when the vehicle was parked by the petitioner's brother at a place in Pallakkad, it was stolen. It is stated that thereupon a complaint was made to the Sub Inspector of Police, North Police Station Palakkad and thereafter the 2nd respondent taken over the investigation in the matter. 3. According to the petitioner, subsequently he made Ext.P6 application to the 2nd respondent requesting for an undetectable certificate. However, the same has not been, WP(c).No.8657/09 2 issued so far. It is with this grievance and praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a certificate as above, the writ petition is filed. 4. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the 2nd respondent had completed the investigation and submitted the files to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Plalakkad and that the Assistant Superintendent of Police returned the files to the 2nd respondent with a direction to conduct a further investigation into the matter. It is stated that once investigation is conducted dependent upon the outcome of the investigation, a decision on Ext.P6 will be taken and communicated tot he petitioner. 5. As already stated according to the petitioner, the vehicle was stolen on 23.6.2007. Now almost one and a half years have elapsed. In view of this there is no justification for delaying the matter any further. However having regard to the fact that a further investigation has to be conducted by the the 2nd respondent, he shall concluded it within 8 weeks from WP(c).No.8657/09 3 the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is also directed that depending upon the outcome of the further investigation, a decision on the request made by the petitioner in ExtP6 for the undetectable certificate shall be taken into and the same should be communicated to them without any further delay in the matter. petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.8657/09 4