IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10980 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.P.NANDAKUMAR, D/O.LATE K.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS,CHIEF EDITOR,CRIME FORTNIGHTLY, PUTHIYARA,KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT 24/861-F, PATHIYERIPARAMB ROAD, VALAYANAD VILLAGE, WARD 24, POST MANKAVE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLIC HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695010. 3. THE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE- KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CIVIL STATION POST, KANNUR, PIN 670002. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, CIVIL STATION POST, KANNUR, PIN 670002. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, POST NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671314. 6. SRI.P.SASI, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, POST KEEZHARA, MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670301. svs. ..........2/-... ....2... WPC.NO.10980/2011 7. SRI.PINARAYI VIJAYAN, SECRETARY- KERALA STATE COMMITTEE, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST), AKG CENTRE, A.RAGHAVAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695034. 8. COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST), REPRESENTED BY SRI.PRAKASH KARAT, GENERAL SECRETARY-COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST), CENTRAL COMMITTEE OFFICE, A.K.GOPALAN BHAWAN, 27-29, BHAI VIR SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. 9. KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSIONE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, NEAR LOURDS CHURCH, PMG, PATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004. 10. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION, KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, NEAR LOURDES CHURCH, PMG, PATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10980 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent Nos.2 to 5 to dispose Exts.P3 to P6, representations made to them within a time to be stipulated by this Court to ensure rule of law, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to register a case under appropriate law and for due investigation against acts (allegedly) committed by respondent No.6, direct respondent No.7 to produce the report of the Enquiry Commission appointed by his (political) party regarding the alleged sexual harassment (allegedly) indulged by respondent No.6, direct respondent No.8 to file affidavit and produce evidence before this Court on the said issue, direct respondent No.9 to file an affidavit and report before this Court on the said issue and grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the course of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, respondent No.6 has indulged in certain acts which according to the petitioner comes within the category of a cognizable offence. It is the grievance of petitioner that in W.P(C).No.10980 of 2011 -: 2 :- respect of the said offence, he had preferred Exts.P3 to P6, representations before respondent Nos.2 to 5 requesting them to act in accordance with law but, no action has been taken and the representations are not so far disposed of. It is averred in the petition that regarding the said cognizable offence (allegedly) committed by respondent No.6, his party appointed a commission for enquiry, that commission has submitted its report to the party leadership and if produced, that report would show that respondent No.6 has committed the cognizable offence referred to in this petition. Respondent No.9 is the Kerala Women's Commission which is required to file an affidavit as to the action taken in the matter. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that having regard to the nature of the offence (alleged) to be committed by respondent No.6 and the attitude of respondent Nos.2 to 5, interference by this Court is necessary to ensuer rule of law. According to the learned counsel, Article 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to empower this Court to issue proper directions in that regard. 2. The core issue referred in this petition is the (alleged) commission of the offence by respondent No.6 which according to the learned counsel is cognizable in character. The ultimate objective of this petition is to ensure that by registering a case in W.P(C).No.10980 of 2011 -: 3 :- respect of the said offence rule of law is ensured. If, in spite of petitions presented to respondent Nos.2 to 5 regarding commission of a cognizable offence no action is taken, petitioner is not without any remedy under law. If petitioner is aggrieved and, is otherwise interested to set the law in motion as regards commission of an offence cognizable or not, the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) contains sufficient provisions to set the law in motion. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India (2007(6) SCC 171) in a case where petitioner before Supreme Court had filed a complaint before the police regarding commission of cognizable offence but, complained that no action was taken on that complaint, held that the power under Articles. 32 or 226 of the Constitution is not to be invoked in such circumstances. The remedy of aggrieved party is to approach the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter as provided under Sec.190 r/w Sec.200 of the Code by laying a complaint. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be involved as the Supreme Court held in the decision referred supra to direct the police to register a case. 3. So far as the prayer that respondent No.7 is to produce the report of Enquiry Commission is concerned, W.P(C).No.10980 of 2011 -: 4 :- assuming that there was any such an enquiry and report, that is a matter which concerned that party and its discipline as to the action if any to be taken which this Court is not required to interfere and summon. Similar is the situation with respect to the relief sought against respondent No.8 in the matter of filing affidavit on the issue. This Court is not to conduct an enquiry invoking Article 226 of the Constitution whether any person has committed any offence as alleged. 4. What remained is the request for direction to respondent No.9 (The Kerala Women's Commission) to file affidavit on the issue. Learned counsel has fairly conceded that no complaint has been preferred by petitioner before the Women's Commission. Nor is it required to direct that authority to submit any report, in view of the decision I have taken. 5. In view of what I have stated above, I am not going into the question whether all the persons arrayed as respondents in this proceeding are either necessary or proper parties. 6. So far as the representations (Exts.P3 to P6) allegedly made to respondent Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, if any person has made a representation to such authorities as claimed, such authorities have to look into the matter and dispose of the same as it deserve having regard to the factual and legal situation W.P(C).No.10980 of 2011 -: 5 :- concerning the matter. There is no reason why I should think that those authorities will not discharge that responsibility so that, any direction is to be issued. I also stated the course available to the petitioner if his representations are considered. In the light of what I have stated above, I do not find reason to entertain this petition. With the observations made above, this writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge