IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22171 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.CHANDRIKA, AGED 50, W/O. SUNDRAN, ARUN NIVAS, KAPPIKKADU, POOVACHAL.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KAPPIKADU MILK PRODUCERS, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.T.123(D) APCOS, KAPPIKADU, POOVACHAL.P.O., TRIVANDRUM COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, KATTAKADA, TRIVANDRUM. BY G.P.SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22171 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS DATED 22.8.2009. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE SEIZURE RECEIPT DATED 15.9.2010. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING 2 AND 3 RESPONDENTS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. cl PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.22171 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT C.K. Abdul Rehim, J: Petitioner was the Secretary of the first respondent, a Milk Producers' Co-operative Society. It is stated that she was working as Secretary of the society since its inception in the year 1983. Due to political rivalry between the petitioner's husband and an MLA belonging to the Congress party, harassment was initiated by the President and committee members against the petitioner, is the allegations. It is complained that the 4th respondent - the Sub Inspector of Police, conducted search in the house of the petitioner and taken away the key of the society building on issuing Ext.P2 receipt. According to the petitioner, such an action was taken only to harass and humiliate the petitioner, due to the undue influence exerted by the MLA, who is keeping enmity with the petitioner's husband. It is further submitted that, even thereafter the 4th respondent is harassing the petitioner in various manner. According to the petitioner, W.P.(C).NO.22171 OF 2011 : 2 : she submitted Ext.P3 complaint before various authorities of the Dairy Development Department, but the harassment is continuing. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions received from the 4th respondent, submitted that the petitioner was suspended from the post of Secretary of the Milk Society, in the year 2010. But, the petitioner had taken away the keys of the society building and various records pertaining to the day-today activities of the society, without any authority. It is stated that on the basis of complaint received from the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent had intervened and taken the keys of the society building into custody, and the same was handed over to the 1st respondent. Even now, various records are not returned by the petitioner to the 1st respondent society. However, it is conceded that no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner nor the police is causing any harassment as alleged. It is further stated that the suspension and the connected events happened as early as in September, 2010 and that the grievance now expressed by the petitioner is totally baseless. But it is conceded that, recently the society W.P.(C).NO.22171 OF 2011 : 3 : had submitted a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer making allegations against the petitioner, which was forwarded to the 4th respondent for conducting enquiry. It is only in connection with the enquiry of the said complaint that the petitioner's presence was requested. 3. We record the statement made on behalf of the 4th respondent that no criminal case is registered against the petitioner, as on date. However, we make it clarified that in case any criminal case is registered and the petitioner is arrested, the fourth respondent should abide by the stipulations contained in Section 41 A to 41 D of the Cr.P.C. If presence of the petitioner or production of any records is required, the 4th respondent should issue notice as contemplated under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. cl