IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19661 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. PRAMEELA SOMASEKHAR,(HR.NO.198401727), SR.TELECOME OFFICE, ASSISTANT BSNL CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE, CHANGANACHERRY,RESIDING AT PRASANNA SADANAM, ITHITHANAM P.O.,CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.PRAMAJA D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033. 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOME KOTTAYAM CIRCLE, PULIMOOD JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. BABU C. NAIR, SR.TELECOM OFFICE ASSISTANT, BSNL CUSTOMER CARE CENTRE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101. ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SC, BSNL FOR R1 & 2 SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19661/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.9.2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 30.1.11. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.2.11. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.RTI ACT/05/VOL.VII/KTM/2011/33 DATED 21.3.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19661 OF 2011 (G) ===================== Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance in the writ petition is that the petitioner made Exts.P1 to P3 complaints against the 3rd respondent alleging that she is being harassed by him. It is stated that despite receipt of the said complaints, respondents have not initiated any action thereon. It is in the above circumstances, the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to initiate action on the aforesaid complaints. 2. Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits on instructions that a Women Complaint Cell has already been constituted by the respondents in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997(6) SCC 241). It is also stated that complaints made by the petitioner have already been referred to the said cell and that the said cell is seized of the matter. 3. Now that such a submission has been made by the standing counsel, all that is required is that the respondents shall complete the process already initiated on the complaints made by WPC No. 19661/11 :2 : the petitioner. This the respondents shall do with notice to the parties concerned and as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp