IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 34560 of 2011(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ALEX PAUL, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, NELLANGARA ,NETTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI. P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR SRI. SANDESH RAJA .K. SMT.VIDYA MENON RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------- HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), ERNAKULAM - 682 031 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NS WP(C).No. 34560 /2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT & PETITION DATED 12.11.2011 WITH INDEX. EXT. P1(A) : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT & PETITION DATED 18.11.2011 WITH INDEX. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 2.12.2011. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9.12.2011. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE NS ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).34560/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.326/2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Court, Andheri, Mumbai. He is also an accused in S.T.4689/2005 and 4954/2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. It is also stated that in C.C.No.549/08 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, petitioner is the complainant. 2. The case at Mumbai Court is at the defence evidence stage. According to the petitioner, he wanted to produce before the Mumbai Court, the translated copies of the proceedings in the cases at Thrissur. Translated copies, which were attested by the Notary were produced at the Mumbai Court. However, the Court declined to accept the same. According to the petitioner, there is no translator in the trial Court and that therefore he made Ext.P2 application to the respondent to issue him translated copies of the proceedings of the Thrissur Court, with seal, so that the same could be produced before the Mumbai Court. That application has been rejected by Ext.P3. It is challenging Ext.P3 the writ petition is filed. W.P.(C).34560/2011 2 3. Petitioner does not have a case that the respondent has any statutory obligation to issue translated copies as sought for by him. If the respondent has no such statutory duty, there is no illegality in Ext.P3 and this Court cannot compel the respondent to comply with the request of the petitioner. 4. Needless to say that it is open to the petitioner to seek any other remedy that is available to him for getting the translated copies. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs