IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14781 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- NANDINI MATHEW, PRESIDENT, NAVODAYA MAHILA SAMAJAM REG.NO.ER 360/76, ANIGARDENS HOUSE, RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., PIN 682 039 (VIA)KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT.ANITHA, PALAKKAD HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., VIA KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI.MARTIN, PARAMBITHARAYIL HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., ALINCHUVADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. G.P., SHRI T. K. VIPINDAS FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 14781 of 2010 W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining police harassment by compelling her to hand over certain documents relating to the Samajam, mentioned in Ext.P1. She also sought for a direction to the second respondent to hand over a copy of the order purported to have been passed by him on Ext.P4 appeal. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the President of M/s. Navodaya Mahila Samajam, which is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. The third respondent manipulated some documents and managed to get renewal of the Registration Certificate of the Samajam in her name. Petitioner approached this Court by fining a Writ Petition. She was directed to approach the second respondent by W.P.(C).No. 14781 of 2010 2 filing an appeal. The case of the petitioner is that though the appeal was filed by her it was disposed of without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The first respondent is pressurizing her to hand over certain documents to the third respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police authorities have no manner of right to compel her to hand over the documents. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the first respondent will not interfere in the matter. We record the same. 5. Without prejudice to th right of the petitioner as also the third respondent to pursue their remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law, this Writ Petition is disposed of. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm