IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26516 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.B. GOPINATHAN, S/O. LATE K. BHANU PANICKER, BHAKTHI VILASOM, PULINKUDI, MULLOOR.P.O, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 26516 of 2008-F ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner – a retired Professor, has come to this Court with the grievance that the complaints about the improper behaviour directed at him by the two police officials as well as some other adversaries of his have not been properly considered, enquired into and action taken by the respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, there was wanton mis behaviour against him by respondent 4 and 5 on 9/3/08. About this, he lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Trivandrum. That complaint, which is primarily directed against improper conduct of the Sub Inspector of Police and the Circle Inspector of Police (R4 and R5), was sent to the 6th respondent – another Sub Inspector of Police, for conducting W.P.(c) No. 26516 of 2008-F -: 2 :- an enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner that a Head Constable came to him to conduct such an enquiry. He is totally dissatisfied with the action taken on his complaint by the 2nd respondent – City Police Commissioner of Police, Trivandrum. He therefore prays that appropriate directions may be issued. 3. Satisfied prima facie about the grievance raised, this writ petition was admitted and the respondents were directed to file a statement. A statement has been filed. The submissions of the learned Government Pleader have been considered. It is now submitted that the petitioner had submitted a complaint before the Home Minister. That complaint was sent to the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police had directed the 3rd respondent – the Assistant Commissioner of Police, to conduct an enquiry. He had allegedly conducted the enquiry. He had found the allegations to be not justified. He had submitted Ext.R3(a) report to the Commissioner of Police, it is pointed out. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if Ext.R3(a) is accepted as gospel truth, it is very evident that a W.P.(c) No. 26516 of 2008-F -: 3 :- proper enquiry has not been conducted at all. A perusal of Ext.R3(a) would show that the petitioner had not even been questioned by the 3rd respondent who submitted Ext.R3(a) report. 5. I am of opinion that it is not necessary to delve deeper into the controversies raised. Suffice it to say that the grievance of the petitioner that proper enquiry has not conducted into his grievance does appear to me to be eminently reasonable and justified. Ext.R3(a) cannot convey to this Court that a proper enquiry has been conducted into that complaint so as to hold that it is not necessary to conduct any further enquiry on Ext.P1 complaint lodged by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. 6. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the 2nd respondent can be directed to conduct a proper enquiry into the allegations raised in Ext.P1 complaint as also in the earlier complaint submitted to the Hon'ble Minister for Home and come to appropriate conclusions. In the circumstances of this case, I deem it proper to direct the 2nd respondent to personally conduct such enquiry and take appropriate decision. Necessary steps W.P.(c) No. 26516 of 2008-F -: 4 :- shall be taken and the enquiry shall be completed within a period 45 days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is placed before the 2nd respondent by the petitioner herein. The result of the enquiry shall be communicated to this Court. 7. Issue copy today itself. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 26516 of 2008-F -: 5 :-