IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15816 of 2009(V)
1. TROSI JAYAN, JAGADAMBIKA VILASOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. MADHU KUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PREMCHAND
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :07/08/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
——————————————————–
WP(C) NO.15816 OF 2009-V
——————————————————–
Dated 7th August 2009
Judgment
BHAVADASAN, J.
The petitioner, who claims to be the Chairman of Punarjani
Charitable Trust, has approached this court seeking police
protection.
2. The trust has been constituted with the object of
providing help, aid and residence to the old and aged people in
the society, suffering from various diseases. The trust took a
residential building for the said purpose on rent from one
Smt.Jayasree. A rent deed was also executed. The rent was
being paid regularly. The building accommodates several aged
people, suffering from various diseases. According to the
petitioner, the second respondent is said to have preferred a
complaint before the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner
was not vacating the building taken on rent. Thereupon the
petitioner was called to the office of the 1st respondent. She went
to the office of the 1st respondent and appraised the said
WPC 15816/09 2
respondent of all the facts. According to the petitioner, the
attitude of the 1st respondent was hostile and his behaviour
towards her was far from satisfactory. She was threatened that
unless she vacates the premises within three months, she will
have to face serious consequences. The petitioner contended
that on 1.6.2009 and 4.6.2009, the Sub Inspector of Police,
Varkala, along with some other Police Constables, came to the
building taken on rent by the trust and threatened the petitioner
and others. Later on, it is stated that the 1st respondent abused
the petitioner over phone and threatened her of severe
consequences. The petitioner would say that the respondents
have no right to interfere with the affairs of the trust and she has
not committed any act, warranting interference by the 1st
respondent. Pointing out that she is being harassed and
seeking appropriate reliefs, the petitioner has filed this Writ
Petition.
3. A memo has been submitted by the learned Government
Pleader enclosing a report received by him from the first
respondent. It is seen from the report that the 1st respondent
WPC 15816/09 3
conducted an enquiry pursuant to the direction issued to him.
The said respondent went to building where the trust is being
run and found that the space available is too inadequate to
accommodate the inhabitants. The building had 22 inhabitants.
It is seen that the petitioner has not obtained any recognition
from the Social Welfare Department to run the trust. As per the
report, the inmates consists of orphans, mental patients,
mentally retarded persons etc. There is no sufficient facility and
space available to the inmates and the situation is pathetic and
the place is unhygienic.
4. It seems that the Human Rights Commission has visited
the institution on 04.10.2008 and an interim order was passed
on 30.10.2008 in which the Commission has expressed its
concern and deep displeasure over the situation existing in the
institution. It is further stated that on 24.04.2009 one of the
inmates by name Smt.Nirmala, who is mentally ill, was brutally
assaulted by another inmate and the Secretary of the Trust. On
getting information, the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala went to
the spot and the victim was removed to the hospital. A crime has
WPC 15816/09 4
also been registered with reference to the incident. As per the
report of the Human Rights Commission, it is seen that the
petitioner was unable to produce any documents before the
Chairman of the Commission, to justify the running of the
institution.
5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit,
controverting the allegations in the Writ Petition. It is pointed out
by the said respondent that he has no intention to evict the
petitioner by force and he assured that he will seek eviction only
in accordance with law.
6. On going through the records, it becomes very evident
that the situation is not as stated by the petitioner in the Writ
Petition. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent
speaks for itself. Added to this, is the report of the Human Rights
Commission referred to by the first respondent. It is very evident
that the space available in the building is too insufficient and the
inmates are staying in an inhuman condition. There is nothing to
indicate that there was any sort of threat from anybody as
alleged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The second
WPC 15816/09 5
respondent has made it clear that he does not intend to take law
into his hands. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Writ Petition
and it is dismissed.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
WPC 15816/09 6