J.YESUDASAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners were the Secretary and trustee member of Sarvathrika Sahodarya Samithi (for short, 'SS Samithi'), a charitable society registered under Public Charitable Trust, No.90/96. Samithi was constituted about 29 years back with aims, inter alia, for looking after the mentally ill people by collecting them from streets. The Trust is running a private mental Asylum at Mayyanad, Kollam. Around 230 male inmates and 120 female inmates are residing there for treatment in the different portions set apart for male and female. Some of the inmates continue there even after they are cured of their mental illness. During the past few years, 7 inmates have died in suspicious circumstances. On 13.10.2015 one Swapna hailing from Bihar died in suspicious circumstances. On 14.10.2015, when the first petitioner tried to enquire about the incident from the inmates, the managing trustee abused him and kicked him out of the premises of the Asylum. It was alleged that, even though separate areas are provided for male and female members, some male inmates used to enter the female portion as intruders. It was further alleged that Swapna had seen something unusual, in suspicious circumstance. Either for suppressing this or for not disclosing it to others, she was put on over dose sedation without the consultation of the doctor. Her condition became worse and she was admitted in the Mental Hospital, Ullampara and she died of high sedation on 13.10.2015. Exts.P2 and P3 representations were submitted by the petitioners to the Superintendent of Police and District Collector but no action was taken. During the course of past few years, several eminent persons had disassociated themselves from the functioning of the Trust. Petitioners were terminated from the Trust on 03.11.2015 after making a complaint on 17.10.2015. Hence, petitioners sought for a writ or direction to consider Exts.P2 and P3 complaints and to entrust the investigation to a competent police officer of the force.

(2.) The State appeared through Public Prosecutor and filed a statement. The Managing Trustee got himself impleaded as additional 5th respondent and he has also filed a detailed counter.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned senior counsel for the 5th respondent.