IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1502 of 2009(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.D. BABY, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RETIRED), CHARIS, MANALI, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY ADVS. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, MR.SAIJO HASSAN MR.SAIJO HASSAN MR.RAJAN VELLOTH MR.A.S.SABU MR.BINOJ.C.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 1502 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retired Superintendent of Police. He was working as Deputy Superintendent under the 1st respondent up to 31.8.2004. 2. While he was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, in Palakkad an incident occurred on 17.3.2003. Some activists belonging to LDF and CPI(M) under the leadership of two members of Parliament conducted a march to the S.P's office. The demand was to conduct judicial enquiry into the Muthanga incident. The protestors became violent resulting in attack on the police party. Many police men were injured and ultimately this resulted in the police using force and lathi charge to disperse the violent mob and bring the situation under control. Thereafter, the injured police men were taken to the Government District Hospital, Palakkad for medical treatment, where the LDF volunteers and leaders were also admitted. There was an attack against the police party in the hospital premises and it resulted in damage to the Police Aid Post at the District Hospital and also to the wireless set which was kept in the Aid Post. A police constable, Shri.Nityanandan was brutally man handled and he sustained a serious fracture. Similarly another Police Constable Smt.Anitha also sustained serious injuries when she was attacked in wpc:1502 of 2009 2 the hospital. It was alleged that the police personnel were denied treatment by the Superintendent of the Palakkad District Hospital. According to the petitioner, she was acting like a party activist and was taking a hostile attitude against the police party. It was pointed out that then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, Thrissur considered the matter and filed a report as per Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is a letter forwarded by the Superintendent stating her version on the incident. It is also stated that the Health Secretary, Government of Kerala and the Kerala State Human Rights Commission had also conducted an enquiry into the issue and the petitioner's statement was recorded. According to the petitioner, in these enquiries, the authorities found nothing adverse against the police personnel. 3. The incident led to the Registration of Crime No.113 of 2003 of Palakkad Town South Police Station which was charge sheeted and was pending as S.C.No.437 of 2004 against the 75 L.D.F and CPI (M) activists before the Additional Sessions Court for various offences under the IPC and PDPP Act. Another Crime No.112 of 2003 was registered against the LDF activists and the same was charge sheeted and was pending as C.P.No.26 of 2004 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Palakkad. It is pointed out that SC.No.437 of 2004 was withdrawn as per order dated 16.6.2007 in Criminal No.M.P.378 of 2007. By Ext.P4, Government has granted no objection wpc:1502 of 2009 3 to withdraw CP No.36/2004. According to the petitioner any further action in the matter will amount to victimization of the police personnel. The second respondent was directed by the Government as per Ext.P6 to enquire into the matter relating to the incidents reported by the Superintendent of the hospital. According to the petitioner, it is a one sided enquiry that is being ordered since only one set of allegations alone are sought to be enquired and the same is actuated by political considerations and malafides. The petitioner was asked to appear before the second respondent on 16.6.2008 to give evidence for the purpose of enquiry pursuant to Ext.P7 notice. The petitioner by way of Ext.P8 sought for various documents, records which are required for him for participation in the enquiry and that was rejected by Ext.P9. 4. The petitioner has now moved the Government seeking a review of Ext.P6. According to him, the enquiry will be a farce. Detailed reasons have pointed out in Ext.P10 for setting aside the enquiry. Since the same is pending, he has filed Ext.P11 before the second respondent to keep in abeyance the enquiry till a decision is taken as per Ext.P10 by the first respondent. It is pointed out that ignoring Ext.P11, the second respondent issued yet another notice dated 16.12.2008 (Ext.P12) directing the petitioner to appear before the second respondent on 24.12.2008. Hence the petitioner again filed another representation (Ext.P13) dated 24.12.2008 requesting the wpc:1502 of 2009 4 second respondent to keep in abeyance the enquiry proceedings till the disposal of Ext.P10 petition by the first respondent. Finally, the second respondent vide letter dated 30.12.2008 (Ext.P14), directed the petitioner to appear before the second respondent. On that day, he filed and application seeking adjournment as he has taken the matter before the Government. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P6 and 14. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader. It was pointed out that the enquiry is being proceeded as the second respondent has to place the report to the Government. Regarding the review sought by the petitioner, of Ext.P6, it is submitted that it is up to the Government to take a decision in the matter and this Court at this stage cannot go into the matter. 6. In that view of the matter and in the light of the pendency of Ext.P10 before the Government, there will be a direction to the first respondent the Government to consider Ext.P10 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is also seeking for copies of various documents which according to him are required for the effective defence in the matter. The second respondent will consider the said request and provide the copies of relevant documents which are requested for by the petitioner. wpc:1502 of 2009 5 The writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue to the contentions that have been raised in the writ petition in the appropriate proceedings. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps