IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18890 of 2007(W)
1. T.PURUSHOTHAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. SHRI. P.T.VASU,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :SRI.S.RAJEEV
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-----------------------
W.P.(C).No.18890 OF 2007
------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner states that he is a victim of assault by the 4th
respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police. It would appear
that into the allegations raised by the petitioner an enquiry
was conducted by the Assistant Collector(under training).
Ext.P1 is the report that was submitted, where it is
concluded that the 4th respondent is guilty of the alleged
police excesses in Payyannur area against the activists of
Janavedi, of which the petitioner was the Convener.
In this writ petition, what the Petitioner complains is
that although the report was submitted way back in 2002,
there has not been any further action on it. Learned
Government Pleader submits that the matter is pending
before the 2nd respondent.
WP(c).No.18890/07 /2/
Thus it is obvious that a final decision on the basis of
Ext.P1 report has not been taken. Since the matter is penidng
before the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd respondent to
consider Ext.P1 report and take a decision on the complaint
made by the petitioner, in the light of the findings therein. A
decision as above shall be take by the 2nd respondent as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from
the date of production of a copy of the judgment.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before
the 2nd respondent for compliance.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/