IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WA.No.1550 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31323/2007 Dated 25/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- S.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN THAMPI, PANANTHANAM HOUSE, PAKKIL PO., NATTAKAM AMSOM, PAKKIL DESOM, KOTTAYAM, NOW RESIDING AT CALICUT IN 'SREYAS' HOUSE, 3/1553, PANICKER ROAD, NADAKKAVU, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1550 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The appellant had filed the writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to consider his request for grant of sanction to prosecute certain police officers, who, according to him had misused their official position. According to the petitioner, he had submitted Exts.P7 and P8 representations before respondents 1 and 2 seeking sanction to prosecute the said officials. 2. The learned Judge before whom the writ petition came up for consideration took the view that the prayer was not sustainable for the reason that the appellant/petitioner had not impleaded the officials whom he wanted to prosecute after obtaining sanction. 3. We have carefully perused the various documents produced by the appellant along with the writ petition. The case of the appellant appears to be that the Sub Inspector and the Head Constable attached to Nadakkavu police station at Calicut had misused their official position and registered a crime against him in the year 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 308 IPC. Appellant had W.A.No.1550/2008 -2- also made certain allegations against the then Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IV, Kozhikode. In fact, in Ext.P8 representation, the appellant had sought sanction to prosecute the said Magistrate whereas in Ext.P7 the prayer was to grant sanction to prosecute the police personnel mentioned above. 4. As rightly observed by the learned Judge, the appellant ought to have impleaded those officers whom he wanted to prosecute after obtaining sanction. Having regard to the peculiar nature of the allegations made by the appellant against the officers referred to above, we have no hesitation to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It was only appropriate that necessary and proper parties were impleaded in the writ petition for a proper adjudication of the lis. Since the appellant had not taken any steps to implead the necessary parties even after giving opportunity, the learned Single Judge was, in our view, justified in dismissing the writ petition. 5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS