IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38008 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJUKUMAR P. (KANNAN) S/O.PRABHAKARAN (LATE) SARASWATHI VILASWAM, VADAMON PO, KOMALAM, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SRI.S.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANCHAL POLICE STATION, ANCHAL,KOLLAM. BY ADDL. D.G.P. SRI. P.N. SUKUKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 38008 of 2010-A ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution complaining about the harassment by the police i.e., respondents 1 and 2. 2. Notice was given to the respondents. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions has appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. As directed by this Court, the 2nd respondent has already filed a statement. 3. In the statement the 2nd respondent explains that against the petitioner a rowdy history list has been opened at the Anchal Police Station. This was opened as early as in 2006. As part of the duty of the police, police have to keep a check on persons against whom rowdy history sheets have been opened. In W.P.(C) No. 38008 of 2010 -: 2 :- discharge of that public duty it is true that enquires were made about the whereabouts of the petitioner. But it is incorrect to describe such checking of whereabouts as harassment. The learned ADGP concedes that it is not necessary to keep any photographs of the petitioner. No such photograph has been demanded and shall be demanded, it is further submitted. The petitioner has already lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kollam. Exts.P1 and P2 representations have been filed before the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police is conducting enquiry into the allegations raised. The learned ADGP, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, undertakes that there shall be absolutely no harassment from the police towards the petitioner. But the police will certainly have to discharge their duty of surveillance and supervision over the activities of the petitioner against whom the rowdy history sheet is in force. 4. The petitioner has no case that he has challenged the opening of the rowdy history sheet against him. If the rowdy history sheet has been opened validly, the police cannot be restrained from taking necessary action in accordance with law are bound to take in respect of a person against whom rowdy history sheet has been opened. We record the undertaking of W.P.(C) No. 38008 of 2010 -: 3 :- the learned ADGP that no photograph is demanded and none need be given by the petitioner to the police. We record the undertaking of the learned ADGP that there shall be no harassment whatsoever by the police against the petitioner. We record the further submission that the complaint received by the 1st respondent from the petitioner is being enquired into. 5. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge