High Court Kerala High Court

Bhakthavalsalam K.K vs The State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Bhakthavalsalam K.K vs The State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1938 of 2010(N)


1. BHAKTHAVALSALAM K.K.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. REGHU PANICKER,

5. BHUVANDAS T.M.,

6. ARUNA RAJAN,

7. DR.M.L.SAJEEV,

8. SOMASUNDARAN T.K.,

9. THE PRINCIPAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :02/02/2010

 O R D E R
                          K. M. JOSEPH &
                 M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.(C).No. 1938 of 2010 N
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to

respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from insisting on the petitioner’s

presence in the police station. He has also prayed for a direction

to respondents 2 and 3 to afford adequate police protection to

the petitioner to discharge his normal functions, including

auditing of the accounts as Chairman of the Trust, to convene the

Parent Teacher Association and also to retrieve the entire

records, including the minutes of the trust meeting of the

petitioner.

2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he is the

Chairman of a Trust, which is intended to establish educational

institutions and impart free quality education to the deserving.

The complaint of the petitioner is that the School is mis-managed

W.P.(C).No. 1938 of 2010

2

by respondents 4 to 9, excluding the petitioner. He demanded

rendition of accounts for the previous years, but they turned hostile.

They foisted false complaint against the petitioner and the petitioner

has been summoned to the police station.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that

the police will not interfere in the matter and the petitioner will not be

called to the police station.

4. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader

and close this writ petition. It is made clear that in regard to further

reliefs, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before

appropriate competent forum.

(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm