IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32199 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- K.K.GOPI, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 48, RESIDING AT PAYNUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION (REGISTRAR OF CHITTIES), PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. MANMADHA PANICKER, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, THIRUVANJIYOOR HOUSE, PERUNTHURUTHY, KAVUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. 6. M.D.PRASAD, KRIPPAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR, KUTTIPPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. 7. SNDP SAKHA YOGAM NO.100, MUTHOOR. R1 TO R4 BY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32199 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner who is an activist of SNDP Yogam and a member of the unit contends that, respondents 5 and 6, the present office bearers of SNDP Sakha Yogam No.100 are conducting a prize chitty in violation of the provisions of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(Banning) Act, 1978 as also the Money Lenders Act. A representation has been filed by the petitioner before respondents 2, 3 and 4 as evidenced by Ext.P4. Ext.P4 will be treated only as an intimation by the competent authority. Necessary enquiry should be conducted therein by the 4th respondent. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader also. In the nature of the directions which I propose to issue, notice to respondents 5 and 6 is not necessary. 3. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to look into Ext.P4 and take such action as is appropriate and warranted. Needless to say, if any action is proposed against W.P.(C)No. 32199 OF 2008 -:2:- respondents 5 and 6, they shall be issued notice before any such action is taken. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb