Dismissed

Mohammed.M v. the District Police Chief

Kerala HC29 Jan 2015WP(C)/2819/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the seizure of his vehicles and the inaction of the Police Chief on his formal complaint. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Police Chief to investigate the complaint and take appropriate action within six weeks as per law.

What did the court decide?

The learned District Police Chief to take appropriate action on the preferring petitioner's complaint (Ext. P9) and finalize proceedings within six weeks.

Mohammed.M Vs the District Police Chief — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/9TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2819 of 2015 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

MOHAMMED M., S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, CHAKKITTAKANDI HOUSE, AKKAPPARAMBA P.O., KIZHISSERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.SIDDIQ.K.T SRI.P.VINODKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,

¶13

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, UP HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶15

AREACODE POLICE STATION, AREACODE P.O.

¶16

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 644.

¶17

3. KAVANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶18

KAVANOOR P.O., AREACODE (VIA),

¶19

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 639,

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

4. AREACODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶22

AREACODE P.O., AREACODE (VIA),

¶23

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 639,

¶24

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶25

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶27

29-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

msv/

¶29

WP(C).No. 2819 of 2015 (B)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF SEIZURE MAHAZAR DTD.26.12.2014.

¶33

EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.691/2014 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION DTD.26.12.2014.

¶34

EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SAND PASS NO.47930/2014 DTD.26.12.2014 FOR THE VEHICLE NO.KL-08/AN 8287.

¶35

EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.6.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF SEIZURE MAHAZAR DTD.29.12.2014.

¶37

EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.701/2014 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION DTD.29.12.2014.

¶38

EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE SAND PASS NO.52772/2014 DTD.29.12.2014 FOR THE VEHICLE NO.KL-45/A 2358.

¶39

EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.6.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.1.1.2015 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF.

¶41

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶47

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

The petitioner is the owner of the vehicles bearing Nos. KL 08 AN 8287 and KL 45 A 2358. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to the illegal seizure of the vehicles by the second respondent, alleging unauthorized transportation of river sand as per Exts. P1 and P5 mahazars. The case of the petitioners is that transportation was being effected by the petitioner on the strength of valid passes issued by the concerned authority. Being aggrieved of the course and proceedings pursued by the second respondent, totally without any regard to the Rule of law, the petitioner has moved the first respondent by filing Ext. P9 complaint to conduct an enquiry and to take appropriate action against the delinquent officials. But no positive steps are taken so far. Hence the writ petition.

¶50

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶51

Considering the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is

¶52

disposed of, directing the first respondent to take appropriate action on Ext. P9 complaint preferred by the petitioner and to finalize the

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 2819 of 2015

¶54

: 2 :

¶55

proceedings in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶59

(JUDGE)

¶60

kmd

Mohammed.M v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed.M v. the District Police Chief

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

Shameer Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayi Police Station

B.Reghukumar Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

T.K.Puravath Vs State of Kerala

Dr.T.R.Chandramohan Vs v.Sureshkumar

Monisha Mohan Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Abdurazak Vs the Village Officer