SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MULLAKOYA THANGAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4993 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL, SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD, SHRI.ISTINAF ABDULLAH, SMT.THASNEEM A.P., SMT.ANUPAMA R. NAIR, SMT.NASHWA P. K., SHRI.SUBRAHMANIAN T.
For the Respondents: SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GP

Statutory authorities must address complaints promptly, ensuring timely action in line with legal obligations.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to investigate complaints of harassment against the petitioner by certain police officials. The court found it an obligation of the statutory authority to address such complaints without delay. The court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the complaint expeditiously, ensuring timely action as per duty.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner seeks relief through writ of mandamus. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the petitioner confines the relief to a timely disposition of the complaint. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court orders the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the complaint without undue delay. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks for the following reliefs;

“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the atrocities committed by the respondents 7 to 12 against the petitioner and to take appropriate action on the same.

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P13 representation, within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. The petitioner alleges that respondents 5 to 12 have been harassing the petitioner and his family members and that, he had filed a compliant before the Police Complaints Authority, despite which no action has been initiated

3. During the course of hearing, petitioner confined his relief to a direction to dispose of the complaint filed before the 2nd respondent in a time bound manner.

4. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the petitioner is included in the rowdy history sheet and further that the petitioner was summoned to the Police Station, pursuant to the conditions imposed in the order in Ext.P9 and that, the allegations are without any basis.

5. Notwithstanding the disputed contentions mentioned above, since the petitioner has confined his relief for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider his complaint, which is produced as Ext.P13, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with such a direction, as it is an obligation upon the statutory authority to dispose of the complaints filed before it, without undue delay.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P13 complaint, as expeditiously as possible, in a time bound manner, after hearing all the parties thereto. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top