KHALID Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The S. I. of Police Tellicherry has reported the C. Ps. have been warned by him not to take possession of the paramba. A reply may be given to the petitioner accordingly. Draft proceedings (L. Dis) put up may be approved" issued by the Executive First Class Magistrate and Ext. P-3, a communication addressed to Smt. Chathampalli Lakshmi, Respondent No. 1 to this writ application, by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry, respondent No. 2 to this writ application. Ext. P-3 is in these terms: "the petitioner is informed that the C. Ps. have been warned by the Police against trespass and breach of peace. "

(2.) THE direction in Ext. P-2 and the notice, Ext. P-3, came to be issued in the following circumstances. THE first respondent moved a petition before the second respondent (Ext. P-1) stating that she "has reason to believe" that the two petitioners to this writ application may "trespass into the property noted in the margin and pluck coconuts. " THE property referred to is one over which the first respondent claimed a Melpattom right and have been it was alleged in the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent and after his death of the first respondent. It appears that the wives of the two petitioners - the two petitioners are brothers who have married sisters - and their sister also, were putting forward some claims to the property. It was further alleged that the petitioners, were trying to influence the first respondent to accept the position that their wives have right to the property. It is said that they sent for the first respondent's brother, one bhaskaran, and insisted that the first respondent should execute a Melpattom in favour of the wives of the two petitioners. All these were stated in Ext. P-1 the petition submitted before the second respondent. THE second respondent passed the following order on Ext. P-1: "forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Tellicherry, for immediate necessary action and report. " S. THE Sub Inspector of Police, Tellicherry, investigated the matter and submitted a report, Ext. P-2. After referring to the stands taken up by either group, the Inspector concluded: "under the above circumstances, I advise the C. Ps. not to take possession of the Paramba as suspected by the petitioner and if they have got any right they have to establish the same through a civil court. It is not proved to say that the C. Ps. have threatened the petitioner or the brother of the petitioner"'

(3.) THIS does not seem to be in consonance with what is stated in Ext. P-2, the relevant part of which I have extracted. But it is not for this Court to determine the correctness of either version. It is urged that assuming what is stated in Ext. P-2 is correct, that the Sub Inspector advised the petitioners not to take possession of the Paramba, the observation of the second respondent that the petitioners have been warned is not supportable on the basis of the report. Counsel contends that warning is a serious matter, and that such warning should be issued only at least on a prima facie satisfaction that grounds exist for believing that the petitioners are likely to cause a breach of the peace. Before issuing any such warning, it is urged, an opportunity should be given to the persons against whom the warning is issued to show cause against such warning. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice which must apply even in regard to executive and/or administrative directions would be violated. Counsel further argued that in this case there was not merely a recording of a fact of a warning, but it has also been communicated to the petitioner and it has been given wide publicity. THIS according to counsel, is highly prejudicial to the reputation of the petitioners and has even infringed their rights guaranteed under Art. 19 of the constitution.