Allowed

Renandranadhan K.B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Oct 2020WP(C)/6331/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the District Collector to establish an Ad hoc POCSO Court in the Annex Hall of the Thrissur Bar Association within the Collectorate building. The Court set aside the Collector's order requiring the Bar Association to vacate, directing instead that the Court be set up in the offered premises immediately due to urgency and the publi

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order requiring the Bar Association to vacate; directed the respondents to establish the Ad hoc POCSO Court in the Annex Hall of the Thrissur Bar Association.

Renandranadhan K.B Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020/5TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.6331 OF 2020(R)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RENANDRANADHAN K.B, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN K.G., PRESIDENT, TRICHUR BAR ASSOCIATION, RESIDING AT KARANATH HOUSE, PADIYAM POST, TRICHUR DISTRICT-680641.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SMT.B.ANUSREE SMT.MEERA P.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOCHI-682031.

¶12

3 DISTRICT JUDGE, TRICHUR-680003.

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR-680003.

¶14

ADDL. 5 P.U.ALI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O UMMAR, PANNIKKA VEETTIL(H),

¶15

WP(C)No.6331/2020(R)

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, AYYANTHOLE DESAM, AYYANTHOLE POST, THRISSUR-680003

¶18

(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/9/2020 IN I.A 1/2020)

¶19

ADDL. 6 THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶20

(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.10.2020 IN I.A.3/20).

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE R5 BY ADV. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL R5 BY ADV. SRI.RONY JOSE R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.LEO LUKOSE R5 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH FREEMAN R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER - S. KANNAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

[CR]

¶24

WP(C)No.6331/2020(R)

: 3 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 27^th day of October, 2020

¶29

The petitioner, who is the President of the Thrissur

¶30

Bar Association, is before this Court seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing Ext.P2 communication of the 4^th respondent-District Collector and of Mandamus directing the respondents to establish the Ad hoc POCSO Court in the Annex Hall of the Thrissur Bar Association.

¶31

According to the petitioner, the Thrissur Bar Association established in the year 1918 owed a parcel of land allotted by the Sovereign, in Chembukavu near the Old Court Complex. The said land was surrendered to the Government when the Court Complex was shifted to the Collectorate premises at Ayyanthole. The Bar Association was initially allotted 1500 sq. ft. area on the ground floor of

¶32

WP(C)No.6331/2020(R)

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

the Collectorate building.

¶35

Later, the Annex Hall on the first floor of the Collectorate Complex having an area 3600 sq. ft. was constructed using MLA Fund and other monetary contributions. The said construction was made for the use and occupation of the Bar Association. According to the petitioner, the Association has 1758 members including 400 lady members and the 5100 sq. ft. allotted to them is not sufficient for the Association activities including maintenance of a large library.

¶36

A new court complex was constructed adjoining the Collectorate, but only 3278 sq. ft. area has been allotted to the Association in the new court complex. The 4^th respondent issued an order on 19.08.2018 seeking to take over the Association premises in the Collectorate building on a temporary basis. According to the petitioner, the attempt to take over the premises for alleged Flood Relief work was engineered to defame the Association. The 4^th respondent has been trying to evict the Advocates Association from the

¶37

WP(C)No.6331/2020(R)

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

Collectorate building. W.P.(C) No.31564/2018 is pending before this Court in that regard.

¶40

The petitioner states that though the new court complex was inaugurated in 2017, a number of courts including Family Court, ACJM Court, Industrial Court, Record Rooms of Munsiff's Courts, Sub Courts and District Court are functioning in the Collectorate building even now. The Labour Court and Lokayukta are holding Camp Sitting in the Collectorate building. An Industrial Tribunal is also coming up there.

¶41

In terms of the directions of the Apex Court, Ad hoc POCSO Courts are being established on a temporary basis. The Thrissur Bar Association offered space in the Annex Hall for POCSO Court on temporary basis. However, the 4^th respondent is not accepting the offer and is taking steps to start the proposed POCSO Court at a distant location near the National Highway. Ext.P2 order dated 23.02.2020 has been passed by the District Collector requiring the Association to vacate the Annex Hall.

¶42

WP(C)No.6331/2020(R)

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

The petitioner contends that since a number of courts are still functioning in the Collectorate building, the Bar Association cannot be ousted from the building. The Annex Hall was constructed using MLA Fund. By the very nature of the POCSO Courts, such courts have to be established at convenient places. Ext.P2 is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶45

The additional 5^th respondent got impleaded himself in the writ petition, as he was vitally and substantially interested in the matter. The Secretary to Home Department, State of Kerala was subsequently impleaded as additional 6^th respondent.

¶46

The 4^th respondent contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 4^th respondent stated that in the newly constructed court complex, there are separate rooms for Advocates and Clerks. The Government has invested substantial amounts in the construction of Civil Station as well as Court Complex. In spite of the said fact, the Government is still forced to pay rent for many Government offices, whereas private entities like Bar Association and

¶47

WP(C)No.6331/2020(R)

¶48

: 7 :

¶49

Advocate Clerks are occupying space in the Government building.

¶50

The 4^th respondent further stated that the Election Wing, Disaster Management Section and Census Wing are functioning in the Civil Station premises in inadequate spaces. The Census Directorate has ordered to arrange for space to keep census materials in a secure place. The District Administration is not in a position to entertain such requests due to lack of space.

¶51

The Government required the 4^th respondent to identify suitable building or part of building of around 25003500 sq. ft. area to establish three POCSO Courts in Thrissur District. One is to be established in Thrissur Corporation area. In consultation with the Principal District Judge, a building has been identified at Thrissur. Measures are being taken to fix rent of the said building. The rent fixation proposal is under consideration of the PWD.

¶52

The 4^th respondent further submitted that he has been required to find out suitable space for the office of the

¶53

WP(C)No.6331/2020(R)

¶54

: 8 :

¶55

newly appointed District Development Commissioner. For all the afore reasons, the 4^th respondent has no other go than to require the Thrissur Bar Association to vacate the premises.

¶56

The 2^nd respondent-High Court of Kerala filed a counter affidavit. Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit of the 2^nd respondent is as follows:-

¶57

“It is submitted that the Government vide G.O(Ms).No.93/2020/Home dated 24/4/2020, have accorded sanction for the establishment of 28 Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) in 14 districts in the State for speedy disposal of rape cases and cases registered under POCSO Act on temporary basis for two years, of which 3 FTSCs are to be established in the Thrissur Judicial District at Thrissur, Kunnamkulam and Irinjalakuda. The Annexe Hall of the Bar Association in the Collectorate building, Thrissur has been found suitable for the establishment of the POCSO Court at the District Court Centre, Thrissur and the Bar Association has offered space in the Annexe Hall for same. However, the District Collector has not accepted the request of Bar Association to offer the Annexe Hall for the establishment of the POCSO Court. Due to the non-availability of Government buildings to establish the POCSO Court at Thrissur, the District Judge was compelled to take steps for establishing the POCSO Court in a rented building in the same locality.”

¶58

According to the 2^nd respondent, the Annex Hall of the Bar Association in the Collectorate building has been found

¶59

¶60

: 9 :

¶61

suitable for the establishment of POCSO Court.

¶62

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 6, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent and learned counsel appearing for the additional 5^th respondent.

¶63

Ad-hoc POCSO Courts are being established on temporary basis across the country pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Taking into consideration the urgency in establishment of POCSO Courts for protecting children from sexual offences, it is highly necessary that such courts are established on a war-footing. The Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has specifically stated that the Annex Hall of the Thrissur Bar Association in the Collectorate building has been found suitable for the establishment of POCSO Court at the District Court Centre, Thrissur. The Thrissur Bar Association, who is occupying the space, has offered the said premises for establishment of POCSO Court.

¶64

Designation of Special Courts under the Protection

¶65

¶66

: 10 :

¶67

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is governed by Section 28 of the Act. Section 28(1) reads as follows:-

¶68

“ 28. Designation of Special Courts - (1) For the purposes of providing a speedy trial, the State Government shall in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, designate for each district, a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under the Act:

¶69

Provided that if a Court of Session is notified as a children's Court under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), or a Special Court designated for similar purposes under any other law for the time being in force, then, such Court shall be deemed to be a Special Court under this section.”

¶70

It is therefore obvious that the State Government shall designate Special Courts in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. The consultation contemplated under Section 28 cannot be confined to designation of Courts, but it should also include the location where the Court is to be established. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court has found that the Annex Hall in the Collectorate Building is suitable to establish POCSO Court at Thrissur.

¶71

¶72

: 11 :

¶73

The contention of the 4^th respondent is that the Government Offices find the available space in the Collectorate building insufficient. That cannot be a good and sufficient reason to avoid establishment of POCSO Court. Though the 4^th respondent has stated that the 4^th respondent has identified a building to accommodate POCSO Court, so far the rent in respect of the proposed building has not been finalised and is still pending with the Chief Engineer, PWD (Buildings), Thiruvananthapuram. After fixation of proposed rent, final approval has to be obtained and the tenant has also to agree with the fixation of rent which is yet to be fixed. Establishment of POCSO Court cannot wait indefinitely.

¶74

Furthermore, establishment of POCSO Courts should be at places most convenient to the litigants and public. By the very nature of the court, it should be easily accessible to the litigants, prosecution machinery, lawyers and advocate clerks. As a number of courts including Family Court are already functioning within the Collectorate building, the Annex Hall in the said building will be suitable for

¶75

¶76

: 12 :

¶77

establishment of POCSO Courts, as found by the High Court of Kerala.

¶78

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2 communication of the 4^th respondent is set aside. Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to establish the Ad hoc POCSO Court, Thrissur in the Annex Hall of the Thrissur Bar Association. Needless to say, since the Thrissur Bar Association is presently occupying the said premises, on completion of the period of functioning of the Ad hoc POCSO Court, the possession of the premises shall be restored to the Bar Association.

¶79

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/28.10.2020

: 13 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶85

EXHIBIT P1 DATED 27.9.2018, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.31564 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P2 DATED 23.2.2020, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4.

Renandranadhan K.B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renandranadhan K.B v. State of Kerala

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

Dr.Mahesh P.G., Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations

Shri. N.J.Pappachan Vs the Poothadi Grama Panchayath

Vallikkat Earth Movers Vs the General Manager

Princy Mathew Vs a.Shajahan

Mahabodhi International Spiritual & Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala

Anoop Ali M.A Vs the District Level Authorization Committee