IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18890 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.PURUSHOTHAMAN, THAYAMBATH HOUSE, KELOTHU, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. 4. SHRI. P.T.VASU, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHELAKKARA CIRCLE, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the enquiry report conducted by the Asst. Collector dated nit. Ext.P2. True cry of the statement filed by the District Collector, Kannur in WP(c).No.22698/05. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.18890 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner states that he is a victim of assault by the 4th respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police. It would appear that into the allegations raised by the petitioner an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Collector(under training). Ext.P1 is the report that was submitted, where it is concluded that the 4th respondent is guilty of the alleged police excesses in Payyannur area against the activists of Janavedi, of which the petitioner was the Convener. In this writ petition, what the Petitioner complains is that although the report was submitted way back in 2002, there has not been any further action on it. Learned Government Pleader submits that the matter is pending before the 2nd respondent. WP(c).No.18890/07 /2/ Thus it is obvious that a final decision on the basis of Ext.P1 report has not been taken. Since the matter is penidng before the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 report and take a decision on the complaint made by the petitioner, in the light of the findings therein. A decision as above shall be take by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/