SUDHEESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P15 order, and for other related reliefs. Ext.P15 is an order passed by the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, dated 22.08.2016, whereby a recommendation was made to conduct enquiry against the petitioner and take appropriate action under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter called, the POCSO Act], and as per the provisions of Child Protection Commission Act. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a practising lawyer with 13 years experience before various Courts in Thiruvananthapuram District. Petitioner is a public spirited citizen and legal advisor of FICUS Charitable Society, constituted with the object of fighting against corruption and for protection of child education, providing financial assistance to children who are financially poor. Petitioner filed several complaints against a teacher in a Higher Secondary School, Kanjiramkulam, with respect to numerous irregularities noticed for violation of Ext.P1 Government Order, for collecting excess fees from SC/ST students, etc. etc. Petitioner came to know that a teacher working as UPSA in the said school had sexually molested three girl children, and parent of a child filed a complaint before the Head Master. Since there was no action taken against the said person, despite adverse report and recommendation of the Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara, petitioner secured documents through the Right to Information Act. In spite of all earnest efforts of the petitioner, there was no action forthcoming from the authorities, and therefore, with the bonafide intention to pressurize the authorities, posted Exts.P9, and P7 and P8 received along with Ext.P9, under the RTI Act, in the face book. Ext.P8 contains the name, class, division and school of the child. According to the petitioner, petitioner did not notice it before posting Ext.P8 in the face book.

(3.) On noticing the name of the child next day itself, petitioner deleted the same from the face book account of the petitioner. One Vijaya Kumar, who is also an activist of FICUS charitable society, requested the 3rd respondent through Ext.P10 to take action against the said teacher, based on the report of the DPI and records received under the RTI Act. In reply to Ext.P10, 3rd respondent sent Ext.P11 communication to Mr. Vijaya Kumar, stating that it is trivial or frivolous matter and it is outside the purview of the Commission. It is also stated, at the instance and influence of the Manager and teacher in question of the school, in collusion with 6th respondent filed Ext.P12 complaint before the Commission on the basis of Ext.P12, and 3rd respondent issued Ext.P13 notice to the petitioner to appear in person before the Commission. Petitioner appeared before the Commission and submitted detailed explanation. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, Commission passed Ext.P15 order, directing the 5th respondent to conduct enquiry into Ext.P12 complaint as well as Ext.P14 objection and take steps to proceed against the culprits. It is thus challenging Ext.P15, this writ petition is filed.