IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 12746 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MOHAMMEDKUTTY ALIAS M.K.EDAYUR, S/O.ALI HASSAN, AZHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, EDAYUR NORTH, VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (VIGILANCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE MOONNAKKAL JUMA-ATH MOSQUE, MAVANDIYOOR, VADAKKUMBRAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.ABOOBACKER, TEACHER, K.V.U.P.SCHOOL, VADAKKUMBRAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR, SC, WAKF BOARD GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 12746 OF 2007 P ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a resident of Edayur North. He is a member of the Mahal of Moonnakkal Juma-ath Mosque. The petitioner has a grievance that crimes have been committed in respect of the affairs of the said Mosque. The petitioner had occasion to raise the grievance before the Wakf Tribunal. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 application before the Director General of Police (Vigilance). His grievance is that no proper action is taken on such complaint. 2. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, Ext.P6 application has been filed and it has been forwarded to the Department concerned for enquiry and report. No report has been received so far. The report is awaited, it is submitted. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper WPC.12746/07 : 2 : investigation is being conducted into the crime which he has complained of in Ext.P6. The petitioner prays that directions under Article 226 may be issued to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation by the Vigilance police. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how in the light of the decision in Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. [ 2008 AIR SCW 309] the petitioner can succeed and secure directions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the fact scenario in this case. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper investigation has been conducted. No crime has been registered and the petitioner's grievance is about the inadequate investigation into the alleged crimes and the same not receiving the attention that it deserves. 5. Sakri Vasu is authority for the proposition that the petitioner cannot be permitted to come before this Court with such application seeking directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the grievance of the petitioner is that no crime WPC.12746/07 : 3 : has been registered or that in a crime registered, no proper investigation has been conducted, the petitioner can certainly approach the superior officers of the police and if that does not redress his grievance, it is open to him to appear before the learned Magistrate/court concerned and raise his grievance. Such court must consider whether action deserves to be taken to refer the complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the appropriate police officer or whether cognizance should be taken and the person having the grievance must be given opportunity to substantiate his grievance under section 200/202 Cr.P.C. It is now trite that a person having such a grievance without and before he takes resort such remedy available to him, cannot be permitted to come before this Court and seek directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The existence of such an equally efficacious alternative remedy must be held to be sufficient reason not to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner who has not resorted to such WPC.12746/07 : 4 : efficacious alternative remedy. 6. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief as enjoined in the decision in Sakri Vasu. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks