IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32330 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABDUL RAHIM.M, S/O.MOHAMMED KHAN, T.C.45/751/1, BEEMAPALLY, TRIVANDRUM-8. BY SRI.M.ABDUL RAHIM (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. INVESTIGATING OFFICER, C.B.C.I.D.-OCW-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNIT. 3. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO CHERIYATHURA POLICE FIRING REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT COURT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32330 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, an advocate and a native of Beemapalli in Trivandrum District, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the terms of the reference as contained in the notification No.36475/SS.A2/2009/Home dated 7/8/09 and to direct the 1st respondent to issue a fresh and correct notification so as to remove the alleged distortions and manipulations. There is a further prayer to direct that a proper investigation into the incident shall be conducted by an independent investigation agency. 2. Although the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification dated 7/8/09 issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointing a commission of enquiry consisting of Sri.K.Ramakrishnan, District and Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, petitioner has not produced a copy of the notification. Therefore, in order to go through the terms of reference, this Court had to direct the learned Government Pleader to produce copy of the WPC No. 32330/10 :2 : notification, and on production thereof, it is seen that the terms of reference of the Commission of enquiry, as contained in the notification, are the following:- (1) To enquire into the facts and circumstances which led to the incident at Cheriyathura and adjoining areas in Thiruvananthapuram District on 17/5/2009, resulting in police firing, death of six persons, injuries to many others and damage to properties. (2) To enquire whether there was any involvement of outside persons in precipitating the incidents. (3) To enquire whether the firing resorted to by the police on 17/5/2009 at Cheriyathura was justified, and, if not, the person or persons responsible. (4) To look into such other aspects as are incidental to and arising out of the matter. 3. Although various grounds have been pleaded in the writ petition, the only contention that was urged by the petitioner was that the notification reflects total non application of mind and that the attempt of the respondents is to make it appear that the firing incident has taken place at Cheriyathura. According to him, the terms of reference have been worded in such a manner that the endeavour of the authorities is only to ensure that the fire is justified. 4. As at present, this Court need only examine the validity of the terms of reference as contained in the notification in the light of the aforesaid contention raised by the counsel for WPC No. 32330/10 :3 : the petitioner. A reading of the notification in my view does not in any manner justify the contentions raised by the petitioner. This is for the reason that the terms of reference itself directs the enquiry into the facts and circumstances which led to the incident at Cheriyathura and adjoining areas in Trivandrum District. Therefore, it is open to the Commission to enquire into the incident that has happened not only in Cheriyathura but also in the adjoining areas in Trivandrum District as well. Therefore, on the terms of reference has now available, I am not persuaded to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry will be confined to incidents at Cheriyathura alone and hence attempt of the respondents as reflected in the terms of reference is to make it appear that the incident in question happened only at Cheriyathura. 5. Thus, I am not persuaded to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that there is either non application of mind or that the terms of reference reflects an attempt of the authorities to make it appear that the incident has happened only at Cheriyathura. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the WPC No. 32330/10 :4 : writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp