Authority decisions must involve all members, not only the Chairperson, as per statutory provisions.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the

1^st respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Police Act , 2011, praying for initiation of action against respondents 2 to 7 on account of the alleged misconduct of the afore officers. However, the 1^st respondent authority, by the impugned order at Ext.P2, has rejected the afore complaint as not maintainable. It is seeking to challenge the afore order that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.S.L.Sylaja, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that, though the complaint was presented before the 1^st respondent authority, the impugned order was issued by its Chairperson alone, which, going by the principles laid down by this Court in Mohanan C. and Others v. State Police Complaints Authority , Vazhuthacadu and Others [ 2018 (3) KHC 54 ]

cannot be sustained.

4. This Court, in the afore judgment, has categorically found that the members of the authority cannot independently function with respect to the provisions of the statute. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the order at Ext.P2 requires to be set aside, and the matter remitted back to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Resultantly, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P2 and directing the 1^st respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The various contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, other than the one noticed above, are left open.

Sd/-