Dismissed

C.K.Natesan,Aged 80 Years v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

Kerala HC29 Nov 2011WP(C)/21478/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition seeking direction to initiate disciplinary action against the Secretary of a Grama Panchayat alleging forgery in a document produced during litigation. Court dismissed petition stating civil and criminal remedies are appropriate.for this grievance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to initiate disciplinary action against the Secretary for alleged forgery as claimed in the complaint is rejected.

C.K.Natesan,Aged 80 Years Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 21478 of 2010(H)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

C.K.NATESAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.C.K.KUNJAYYAN, CHEMMATTUVELY HOUSE, NADAKKAVU P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. MARIA GORETTI, SECRETARY, UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O., PIN - 682 307.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.21478/2010-H:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPIES OF THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT PRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN O.S. 1074/08 IN PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM DTD. 01/10/2009.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/01/2010.

¶23

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DTD. 11/01/2010.

¶24

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO THE R.2. BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/01/2010.

¶25

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DTD. 18/10/2010.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 21478 of 2010-H

¶32

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2011

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the 2^nd respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P4 complaint submitted against the 3^rd respondent. Inter alia the petitioner is seeking direction to the 2^nd respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

Allegation is that the 3^rd respondent, the Secretary of the Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat, had issued an attested copy of Ext.P1 document to Advocate Sri.Jose P.Joseph, who is the counsel appearing for the defendants in a suit instituted by the petitioner before the Principal Munsiff Court as O.S.No.1074/2008, by committing forgery with respect to corrections made in the attested copy of Ext.P1. Raising the above allegation the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 and P4 complaints before the 2^nd respondent. Since no action is taken on the basis of the complaints the petitioner is seeking direction from this court.

¶36

W.P.(C).21478/2010-H

¶37

-2-

¶38

Considering the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner is raising allegation of forgery with respect to a document which was produced before the civil court. If the petitioner has got any grievance that forged document was produced before the court of law, he can approach that court seeking appropriate relief with respect to such production. Further, if the petitioner has got a case that the 3^rd respondent had committed any offense of forgery, he can set law into motion for initiating appropriate steps under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Unless the petitioner is seeking to enforce any statutory right through the representation submitted before the 2^nd respondent, it may not be justified on the part of this court to issue any direction against the 2^nd respondent.

¶39

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, however, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps as mentioned above.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶42

okb

¶43

True copy

¶44

P.A to Judge

C.K.Natesan,Aged 80 Years v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Natesan,Aged 80 Years v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kollam Labour Contract Co-Op. Societ Vs the State of Kerala and Others

R.Ayyappan Pillai Vs Kerala State Elecricity Board

R.K.Raghavan Vs the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

M/S Archana Industries Vs the Intelligence Officer(Ib),Ktm & Ors.

A.Lakshmanan Vs Kseb

Saleem Ahmed Haji Ismail Vs State of Kerala and Others