IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32520 of 2009(H) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BIJU S., KANDATHIL HOUSE, VIRIPARA, MANKULAM P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADVS. MR.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH MR.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SANDAL DIVISION, MARAYOOR, IDUKKI. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.SANILKUMAR (FOREST) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 32520 of 2009-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent and his subordinates to abstain from harassing him and not to register false cases against him or falsely implicate him in cases. 2. The pleadings of the petitioner are to the effect that he is a 'C' Class P.W.D. contractor and is undertaking mainly works relating to roads and bridges under the Devikulam Sub Division of Public Works Department. Earlier, he was having some transportation contracts and during that period some false forest cases were booked against him. He had to approach this Court for various intervals seeking anticipatory bail also. Ext.P1 is one of the copy produced in support of the above plea. Seeking for more information regarding the cases involving him, he filed Ext.P2 application under the Right to Information Act and by Ext.P3 a reply was given to him in respect of 13 cases. According to him, he is not involved in any of the cases shown therein. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam dated 3.10.2009 in O.R. No.50/2003, granting him bail. In certain other cases also he was granted wpc 32520/2009 2 bail. 3. In reply to the averments contained in the writ petition, the first respondent has filed a statement. It is pointed out therein that the petitioner is an accused in 13 forest cases in different forest ranges under the jurisdiction of the first respondent. He was arrested in OR No.158/2005 on the file of Marayur Forest Station on 8.12.2005 and the confession statement of the petitioner was recorded by the investigating officer. A copy of the said statement has been produced as Annexure R(a). It is also stated that on questioning him, it was revealed that he was also involved in a murder case, two abkari offences and one hurt case registered by the police. It is further pointed out that Ext.P3 will show the details of forest cases booked against him. 4. It is further averred in para 5 of the statement that out of the thirteen cases, in only three cases the investigation was completed by the Forest Department and it is necessary to question him in other cases for completing the investigation. It is also submitted that the sandal illicitly felled and transported with the assistance of the petitioner is to be recovered and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to effect the recovery. Annexures R(b) and R(c) had been produced to show that notices were issued to him to appear before the Forest Range Officers, Marayur and wpc 32520/2009 3 Kanthalloor for investigation of the offences in which he is involved. The contention that he is a 'C' class Contractor is also denied. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 6. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief in this writ petition. The relief sought for is too general in nature, i.e. for a direction to the respondent and his subordinates to abstain from harassing him. The averments in the statement show that the petitioner is a person who was involved in various forest offences. There cannot be a blanket ban in registering cases against anybody by this Court or preventing investigation of the cases involving the petitioner. The presence of the petitioner is required for questioning him in various matters and it is up to the respondent to take appropriate action as enjoined by law in this regard. It is clear from the statement that only in respect of three cases investigation is over and his presence is required in various other cases. It is clear that the attempt of the petitioner is to prevent the respondent from proceeding with the investigation. 7. The petitioner can defend the criminal action against him in the manner permitted by law. The assistance of this Court sought at this stage by filing this writ petition by seeking such a direction, cannot therefore be appreciated. The petitioner will have to co-operate with the investigation wpc 32520/2009 4 for finalisation of the same. No particular instance of harassment has been pointed out in the writ petition. It is clear that the respondent is only investigating various cases in which he is involved for which they are duly empowered under law. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/