WP(C) No. 14850 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

WP(C).No. 14850 of 2012 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR, FI STATEMENT AND ACCUSED LIST OF THER1 IN CR.874/12.EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 14-10-2011SHOWING RESIGNATION OF R2.EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REFERRAL REPORT OF R1 REFERRING THE CRIMENO. 874/12 AS 'AS MISTAKE OF FACT'.EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PENDING BEFORE THE R1 DT.24-6-2012.EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PENDING BEFORE THE R2 DT.24-6-2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:EXT.R3(A) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE R3 BEFORE R2 DATED9.1.12.EXT.R3(B) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY R3 BEFORE R1 DATEDNILEXT.R3(C)COPY OF THE FIR NO.633 DATED 16.4.2012 SUBMITTED BEFOREJFCM-II, THRISSUR.EXT.R3(D) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 11.6.2012. EXT.R3(F) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 14.6.2012/TRUE COPY/P.S. TO JUDGE.CL K.M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ. ....................................................... W.P.(C)NO.14850 OF 2012 ......................................................... Dated this the 13th day of July, 2012. JUDGMENT Joseph, J.The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief:

i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamusor any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the1st petitioner society and the life of the 2ndpetitioner and the Managing Committeemembers

.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The first petitioner is an Industrial Co-operative Societyand 2nd petitioner is the President of the 1st petitioner society. Third respondent is the former Managing Director of the1st respondent society ousted from the office in the election held in the month of December, 2011. The 3rd respondent and his men committed serious financial irregularities and misappropriations and action was taken as per Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The 3rd respondent filed a false complaint against the 2nd petitioner and anotherDirector Board member. Ext.P1 is the F.I.R. The 1st respondent W.P.(C)NO.14850 OF 2012 : 2 :conducted an enquiry in Ext.P1 and concluded that there is nothing in the records for incriminating the accused in CrimeNo.274/2012. The 3rd respondent is a dangerous personality having connection in the state politics. Aggrieved by Ext.P3namely the referral report of the 1st respondent, the 3rdrespondent with his supporters trespassed into the society and obstructed the functioning of the society. There is an allegation that the 3rd respondent and his men trespassed into the 2nd petitioner's house and tried to manhandle him and threatened the life of the 2nd petitioner and his family members. The petitioners have filed a complaint and are before us.

A counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent. He denies the allegations and makes various allegations against the 2nd petitioner. A reply affidavit is also filed.

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader. Thelearned Government Pleader would submit that action has been taken on the complaint of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the party respondent would submit that the 3rd W.P.(C)NO.14850 OF 2012 : 3 :respondent has no intention to obstruct the functioning of the first petitioner. He would also submit that he does not have any intention to cause any threat to the life of the 2ndpetitioner and board members of the 1st petitioner. We record the above submission. We dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent that, if contrary to the assurance given in court on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is constrained to complain of either any interference in the affairs of the 1st petitioner or any threat to the life of the second petitioner or board members by the3rd respondent, the first respondent will look into the same and if the complaint is found genuine, provide protection for the smooth conduct of the society as against any obstruction by the 3rd respondent and to the life of the 2ndpetitioner and also board members of the first petitioner. We hasten to add that this judgment will not stand in the way of the 3rd respondent coming over to the office the first petitioner society in exercise of his right as a member of the first petitioner. We further make it clear that wehave not pronounced anything on the merits of the allegations W.P.(C)NO.14850 OF 2012 : 4 :made by the petitioners and the 3rd respondent as against each other. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE.cl