IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29107 of 2010(K) ---------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- ADV.M.P.CHOTHY, MACHERIKKUDY HOUSE, PATTAL-PANKULAM ROAD, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST., IRINGOLE P.O., PIN-683 548. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.CHOTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29107 of 2010 K ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to consider Exts.P2, P4 and P6 applications. Exts.P2, P4 and P6 applications have been filed by the petitioner seeking sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for initiating prosecution against the party respondents on the allegation that they have violated the provisions of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. In Ext.P2, the allegation is that the Secretary of Perumbavoor Municipality refused to shake hands with the petitioner and that when the petitioner met him in his Chamber, the expression on the face of the Secretary was one of contempt and intolerance. In Ext.P4, petitioner alleges that by virtue of a false report submitted by the officers of the WPC.29107/2010 : 2 : Municipality, the Secretary refused cut and removal of certain trees which were causing danger to the petitioner's life and property. In Ext.P6, petitioner's allegation is that additional respondents 3 and 4 have, without any basis, launched prosecution against the petitioner, and that the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court. It is stated that by launching the prosecution as above, the respondents have violated the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. In my view, the representation made by the petitioner, the disposal of which is sought in this writ petition, do not make out even a prima facie case. Section 7(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 provides that whoever insults or attempts to insult on the ground untouchability a member of a scheduled caste, is liable for punishment. In Ext.P2, the only allegation is that the Secretary of the Municipality refused to shake hands with the petitioner and that the expression on his face was one of contempt. In my WPC.29107/2010 : 3 : view, this does not disclose an insult or an attempt to insult, on the ground of untouchability to attract Section 7(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. In Exts.P4 and P6, the allegation is that Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is violated. Section 3(1)(ix) provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe shall be punishable in the manner as provided therein. The allegation in Ext.P2 is that on the basis of a false report, the Secretary refused to cut and remove the trees standing in a dangerous condition. Therefore, such inaction of the Secretary could not in any manner attract Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Similarly, in Ext.P6, what is alleged is that a prosecution was launched against the WPC.29107/2010 : 4 : petitioner, alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code. If a police officer launches a prosecution on the allegation that a person has committed an offence, that cannot attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(ix) referred to above. Therefore, petitioner has not made out a prima facie case attracting the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. Therefore, I am not persuaded to direct the Government to consider the representations. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks