IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30200 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADAR, HOUSE NO. 220 A, MODIKONATH HOUSE, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MUNTAZ, W/O ABDUL KHADAR, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- MR.MANOJ ABRAHAM I.P.S, THE CITY POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.30200/2011-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DTD. 04-09-2011. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C. 328/86 BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DTD. 27-08- 2011. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 27-08-2011. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT BY THE SOUTH ZONE DIG EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C) NO.23045 OF 2011-E DTD.05-08-2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 04-10-2011. EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL SECRETARY DTD. 03/11/11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).30200/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondent to give Rs.3 Crores as compensation for character assassination, harassment, torture and blackmailing of the petitioners and their family members through false report submitted by the respondent against the first petitioner. 2. First petitioner is stated to be an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and the second petitioner is his wife. Ext.P3 is an order issued by the respondent who is the City Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, placing the first petitioner under suspension for the alleged misconducts mentioned therein and appointing an enquiry officer for conducting enquiry. On the issuance of Ext.P3, petitioner made Ext.P4 representation to the Additional Director General of Police for revoking the order of suspension. It appears that thereafter, the first petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).23045/2011 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the Additional Director General of Police to consider his representation for revocation of suspension. W.P.(C).30200/11 2 3. Going by the pleadings, on a report sought for from the respondent, he submitted his report to the Additional Director General of Police. Accepting the report, Ext.P7 order was passed by the Additional Director General of Police rejecting the first petitioner's prayer for revocation of suspension. According to the petitioners, the contents of the report submitted by the respondent to the Additional Director General of Police is incorrect and it is on that premise, he has filed this writ petition seeking compensation of Rs.3 Crores. 4. In my view, the claim for damages as sought for by the petitioners, and that too against an individual, could not have formed the subject matter of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived. It is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge