IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26808 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SMT.G.SREELATHA, PADIPPURAVEETTIL, KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM, ATTINGAL, BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. PIN 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADACKAVOOR, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM PIN. 695 002. 4. SRI.SHAJAHAN @ SHAJI, S/O.KOHAMMED HANEEFA AMINAS KALLAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. PIN 695 001. 5. P.RADHAKRISHANAN SWATHISURA, KOLLAMPUZHA, ATTINGAL. 6. SRI.ASOKAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ASOK NIVAS,VELLAYAMOOLA, KOOZHATTINGAL P.O.,ATTINGAL. PIN 695 002. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS. R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26808/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. P2:- COPY OF THE AMENDMENT INCORPORATED IN THE BYE-LAY. P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION AND THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ACCEPTING. R4(b):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SOCIETY DTD. 1.4.09. R4(c):- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.165/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL. R4(d):- COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DEED IN OS. NO.165/2010. R4(e):- COPY OF THE COMPROMISE WAS RECORDED AS THEMINUTES OF THE SOCIETY DTD. 28.5.10. R4(f):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19.7.10 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. R4(g):- COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.509/2010 DT. 26.8.2010. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss K.M. Joseph & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.26808 of 2010-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to give adequate, effective protection to the life and property of the petitioner and her daughter, from respondents 4 to 6 and their henchmen. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to register an FIR reading complaint lodged by the petitioner regarding the missing of the petitioner's husband and enquire it.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a young mother who is living with her college going daughter. Her husband's whereabouts are not known since 10.2.2009. Her husband had established a private school by name Mother India International Residential School at Attingal in the year 1995 in his family property. He is the Principal of the school from its beginning. Subsequently, he has registered a society along with six other members. In order to develop the infrastructure of the school the petitioner's husband had availed loan from respondents 4 to 6. He was regularly paying interest also. The petitioner's wpc 26808/2010 2 husband was an accused in Crime No.45.2000 of Kadakkavoor Police Station and after trial, the Sessions Court convicted him by judgment dated 4.12.2008 and appeal is pending. The petitioner is employed as Librarian and was functioning as the Administrator of the school. Respondents 4 to 6 who were all along pressurising the petitioner's husband to obtain membership in the society by illegal means. They have obtained membership under threat and coercion. 3. Respondents 4 to 6 stage-managed the affairs of the society and grabbed the official posts of the society. Subsequently, they forcefully took over the management of the school leaving the petitioner as a spectator. The school is a proprietary concern of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner went to jail and informed her husband about the high handed activities of respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner's husband tried to obtain parole for 14 days which was obstructed by respondents 4 to 6. Later, he got parole for 10 days. Respondents 4 to 6 visited him and told him not to intervene with the affairs of the school and threatened him with dire consequences. Subsequent to the release of the petitioner's husband respondents 4 to 6 had managed to transfer the amount worth lakhs in the account of the school to the account of the society. The petitioner's husband's whereabouts are not known from 10.2.2009. The petitioner informed the third respondent about wpc 26808/2010 3 the matter, but she was told by the third respondent under the influence of respondents 4 to 6 that her husband jumped parole and absconded. In para 7 of the writ petition it is stated as follows: “On the other hand the hired goondas of respondents 4 to 6 have started interfering with the peaceful living of the petitioner and her daughter. During old hours they came and knocked on the door and windows of the petitioner's house pretending as police in mufty enquiring whether Sudin is inside. When the petitioner answered that he is not at the house they insisted to open the door so as to search the house. But petitioner refused to open the door. Then the goondas will threaten that they will break open the door and conduct the search next time by the assistance of women constables. This practice continued on several occasions but they never came with a women constable.” 4. In the meantime respondents 4 to 6 had siphoned the entire income of the school into the account of the society. Though the petitioner is the administrator of the school, the accounts were not made available to her. The petitioner who has no male support, is living in fear of her life and safety of her daughter. Therefore, she filed Ext.P1 complaint. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 6 inter-alia stating as follows: The deponent is the present President of the society and its secretary is Henna Subran. The office bearers of the society wpc 26808/2010 4 are duly elected. The husband of the petitioner was one of the members of the society. Certain members of the society had instituted O.P.No.84/2004 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the functioning of the society. A compromise was recorded by which the deponent, respondents 5 and 6 and the husband of the petitioner were recognised as admitted to be members of the society, among others and their contribution to the society was fixed at Rs.25 lakhs each. Ext.R4(a) is the compromise petition and the orders accepting the same. On being committed to Central Prison, the husband of the petitioner applied for parole and he was granted emergent parole. He, however, absconded and in the process he withdrew a substantial portion of the money belonging to the society, deposited in the bank. Resultantly, the society became bankrupt. Even though the entire police machinery in the country are on the lookout for petitioner's husband, for the past 1 ½ years he has been evading detention and from an unknown destination, he has been operating through the petitioner. The members of the society were haunted continuously by the police to reveal the whereabouts of the petitioner's husband. The society decided to remove her husband from its rolls and Ext.R4(b) is the copy of the minutes. The petitioner was thus appointed as the Treasurer of the society. She was advised by her husband from his hideout to launch a series of litigations to wpc 26808/2010 5 wreck the institution by itself. She was in constant touch with her husband and she started filing complaints against the society and its members. She also started submitting frivolous complaints to the CBSE. The petitioner was relieved of her duties as the administrator of the school with effect from March, 2010 and assigned to work as a full time librarian. The petitioner instituted O.S. No.165/2010 and Ext.R4(c) is the copy of the plaint. The second plaintiff is her husband. Not wanting to perpetuate to tense atmosphere in the school and the society, the members of the society have agreed on a compromise wherein the petitioner was allowed to work as administrator-in-charge and discharge her functions as such. Ext.R4(d) is the copy of the compromise deed. The said compromise was recorded as the minutes of the society and Ext.R4(e) is the copy of the same. 6. The petitioner issued letter to the Union Bank of India, Attingal Branch forging a letter head of the school. She was issued with Ext.R4(f) letter to show cause. She took the stand that the respondents are money lenders and lawyer notice was also issued. The petitioner's attempt is to usurp the ultimate administration of the school. There is an allegation that on 26.8.2010, the petitioner with a posse of anti-social elements and along with her brother-in-law entered the school premises and attempted to take over the administration of the school. She suspended the Superintendent of wpc 26808/2010 6 the school and its Principal and attempted to install her sister-in-law as the Principal of the school. The fourth respondent filed a complaint resulting in Ext.R4(g) FIR. The allegation in para 7 of the writ petition are denied. It is also stated that it may be the police officers who recommended the release of the petitioner's husband, had questioned the petitioner and they might have adopted different methods to trace out her husband. 7. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit producing Exts.P2 and P3. It is alleged that though technically the society is conducting the school, the school is owned and established by the petitioner's husband. The petitioner reiterates that she has strong reason to believe that her husband was done away by the goondas of respondents 4 to 6. The allegation that the society had decided to remove her husband is denied as incorrect. According to her, the documents would show that certain decisions were incorporated under the signatures of the members present. She denies the allegation that she is in constant touch with her husband or that she filed any frivolous complaints. The compromise referred to in the counter affidavit is not a bounty of the respondents but they were constrained to do so fearing the parents of the students and the local people. She reiterates that she and her daughter are under constant threat. According to her, respondents 4 to 6 are members admitted on the recommendation of the seven founder wpc 26808/2010 7 members and the tenure of their membership will automatically end when the money advanced by them is returned. The averments in para 16 of the counter affidavit are false. The threat to the life of the petitioner and her daughter subsist even after the interim order of this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the party respondents and the learned Govt. Pleader. 9. As far as the second prayer is concerned, we would think that the writ petition would not lie. Further, in regard to the first prayer, we notice that the actual averment relating to the threat is made in para 7 of the writ petition. This is denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The substance of the matter relates to the dispute about the school. We notice that the petitioner has not disclosed certain aspects of the matter in the writ petition which have come to be disclosed in the counter affidavit. 10. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 would submit that respondents 4 to 6 have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or her daughter. We record the said submission. We do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for granting relief as such in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We dismiss the writ petition. However, we make it clear that if the matter goes before any competent court or forum, the said court or forum shall proceed to decide wpc 26808/2010 8 the matter untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment. (K.M. Joseph, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/