Anoop Shah S.U vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9887 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

                       W.P.(C) No.7596 OF 2021(Y)


PETITIONER/S:

      1         ANOOP SHAH S.U,
                AGED 36 YEARS
                S/O. LATE UMMAR, SAHAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY
                TALUK, KALLOORTHEKKUMURI VILLAGE, MAMBRADESOM,
                ERAYANKUDY P.O. THRISSUR 680 308.

      2         RAFEEQ MOHAMMEDALI,
                AGED 34 YEARS
                S/O. MOHAMMEDALI,
                KOZHIKKARA HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, KALLOOR
                THEKKUMURI VILLAGE, MAMBRADESOM, ERAYANKUDY P.O.
                THRISSUR 680 308.

                BY ADV. SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
                DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

      2         INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
                THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR - 680001.

      3         ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
                THRISSUR-680 003.

      4         DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                CHALAKKUDY, NIRMALA COLLEGE ROAD, JYOTHI NAGAR
                HOUSING COLONY, CHALAKKUDY, KERALA 680 307.

      5         DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                IRINJALAKKUDA, DY.SP. OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA , THRISSUR
                DISTRICT -680121.

      6         STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680732.

      7         SYAL,
                AGED 52 YEARS
                S/O. BHASKARAN, CHERIYANPADATH HOUSE,
 W.P.(C) No.7596 OF 2021(Y)

                                 2

                CHENTHRAPPINNIDESOM, CHENTHRAPPINNI VILLAGE,
                MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680732.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.7596 OF 2021(Y)

                                  3



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 4th respondent and his police men not to harass

the petitioners and their family members.

2. In Aslam S. and another v. State of Kerala and

others [2011 (2) KHC 384] a Division Bench of this Court, in a

writ petition seeking reliefs alleging police harassment, held that

the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India is to be invoked by parties and

exercised by the Court only in exceptional circumstances of grave

and imminent danger to the person applying for such relief,

provided, such a situation is shown and demonstrated to the

satisfaction of the Writ Court and it is shown that the alternate

remedies under the Kerala Police Act, 1960 are resorted to, but

remains ineffective or has turned futile. Such orders cannot be

sought for in a routine manner.

3. In Aslam S., the Division Bench held further that, even

apart from the provisions contained in Section 17E of the Kerala

Police Act, 1960 the law is fairly well settled that every police

officer is duty bound to ensure that he shall act in strict conformity W.P.(C) No.7596 OF 2021(Y)

with the laws. Firstly, he is a public servant. More importantly, he

is one who belongs to a uniformed force. The conditions of service

of such an establishment oblige the personnel to act only within

the frame work of the Constitution and the laws. In an

establishment with a hierarchy of officers in administration, every

superior officer is duty bound to ensure that the subordinate does

not breach the law and acts only in strict conformity with the laws.

This has to be so, even by the terms of the Police Act. Therefore, it

is all the more the duty of every superior officer in the police

establishment to attend to any complaint of citizens of any

harassment or other unlawful act by any member of the police

force subordinate to such officer. In this view of the matter also,

the citizens have abundant avenues to bring complaints before the

superior officers in the police establishment.

4. The Kerala Police Act, 2011 contains provisions similar

to that dealt with by the Division Bench in Aslam S. Section 110

of the said Act deals with the Police Complaints Authority.

5. After arguing for sometime the learned counsel for the

petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition, without

prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the superior

officer with a proper representation and thereafter move this Court W.P.(C) No.7596 OF 2021(Y)

again, in case there is any failure on the part of the superior officer

in discharging his statutory duties.

Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn,

without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioners.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE MIN W.P.(C) No.7596 OF 2021(Y)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME 126/2021 OF MALA POLICE STATION DATED 17.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2021 IN B.A. 2649/2021 OF THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY DATED 23.03.2021.