IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5001 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RASEEF, S/O.MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, AGED 37 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, PREMIER PARK HOTEL, BYE PASS, ENCHAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (RANGE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KRISHNAKUMAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.12, CANTONMENT LANE, PALAYAM POLICE QUARTERS, PALAYAM P.O. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.5001 OF 2010 A PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2009. RESPONDENT' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 5001 OF 2010 A --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows: “1) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the second respondent and his police men and his subordinates not to harass the petitioner unnecessarily. 2) Direct the first respondent to register a crime against the second respondent on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint and investigate the same. 3) Direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 complaint submitted by the petitioner.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the proprietor of a hotel. The second respondent and his police men are regularly coming to the hotel of the petitioner and demanding money for conducting the hotel business smoothly. He is stating that all other hotels within his WPC.5001/2010 A 2 limits are giving monthly remuneration to the police authorities for conducting the hotel and threatening that unless the monthly remuneration is paid regularly, he would not allow the petitioner to run the business. There was a trespass alleged on 23.11.2009 and an attack also was alleged against one of the employees. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint. It is stated that harassment is continuing. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader appears on behalf of the respondents. He would submit that the District Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram conducted an enquiry and found that the allegations against the second respondent are not true. A copy of the Report also is filed, it is submitted. He further submits that the petitioner will not be harassed and the police went to the hotel of the petitioner only as part of routine checking. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has no power to investigate into a case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) WPC.5001/2010 A 3 Act, 1956. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner will not be harassed by the second respondent or his men unnecessarily and if the petitioner has a complaint against the Report of the Commissioner, we leave it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before any other Forum including before the Police Complaint Authority. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge