THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Ext. P7 the petitioner has requested the Government to issue orders directing "the Prosecutor/Police to launch a criminal prosecution against" the 3rd respondent, who, according to him, had made speeches at the convention of his party on 25-5-1985 at Ernakulam "undermining the unity, integrity of the country and authority of the Government and the State." This petition is dated 6th June 1985. As there was no reply to Ext. P7, the petitioner has sent a reminder Ext. P8. Despite the reminder, the 1st respondent has not so far passed any order either directing the criminal prosecution or rejecting the application. In these circumstances, the petitioner has moved this Original Petition for the following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent by making the speech referred to above, has committed offences falling under The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, for short the Act, and therefore liable to be prosecuted. The State failed to set in motion the machinery to prosecute the 3rd respondent and therefore being a citizen of this country, the petitioner thought, he should remind the State of its duty and this has resulted in his sending Ext. P7 petition, followed by the reminder, ext. P8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the State directs the prosecution, as demanded under Exts. P7 and P8, he has no other effective legal remedy by which he can get the rule of law enforced in this country. He therefore submits that this Court may issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appropriate directions to launch a criminal prosecution against the 3rd respondent for the offences, he is alleged to have committed under the Act. The submission at the first blush, no doubt, is attractive. But going deep into the matters, I am of the view that the submission is not sustainable; for, the petitioner has other alternative and efficacious remedy as pointed out by this Court in the decision in Kallara Sukumaran and another v. Union of India, Writ Appeal No. 261 of 1985 ( 1985 KLT 567 ). In this context, it is relevant to note the provisions contained in S.190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. S.190:

(3.) The above decision I am afraid, has no application to the facts of the case before me. Here, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has no remedy at all. From the discussion in the above decision what is seen is that the law, the Court of Appeal interpreted, did not contain a provision similar to S.190, Criminal Procedure Code enabling a relator to launch a private complaint.