Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Petitioner firm has approached this Court complaining harassment by violating the fundamental rights of petitioner for carrying out business as enshrined under Article 19(1) g of the Constitution of India. They claim that they are engaged in the business of hire purchase of vehicles and other loans only after obtaining registration under Kerala Money Lenders Act from the competent authorities. According to petitioner firm, they are conducting the business till date without any complaint whatsoever. They are following the procedure to be followed and submitting audited balance sheet in terms of procedure. There was no occasion warranting any action against them by the authorities under any Act for violation of any of the procedure contemplated.
2. They allege, under the guise of 'Operation Kubera' Police are harassing petitioner firm which is conducting business legally, though there is no violation of any procedure. This is nothing but interfering with the lawful business of the petitioner firm. As there is violation of principles of natural justice, they are before this Court seeking intervention of this Court.
3. In response to the notice, 5th respondent has filed statement in the above case. The money lending business of petitioner firm is at Kunnamkulam in Thrissur District. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam on 16.05.2014 received an information and based on the same a complaint has been registered as IAPS No.502261 of 2014. After obtaining necessary permission to conduct search in the business premises of the petitioner firm, i.e., as per order of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, Police have conducted search in the business premises of petitioner on 17.05.2014. However, no material was found for the purpose of filing an FIR. After the search a copy of the report was handed over to the petitioner which is also acknowledged by the petitioner. They also conducted similar search at the residence of Managing Partner of the petitioner firm. There also they were not able to secure any material for registration of a crime. Therefore, they have closed the matter.
4. Learned Senior Counsel arguing for petitioner submits that paragraph 4 of Ext.P1 is very relevant. The action of respondent Police in the present case is nothing but violation of directions issued there. In order to understand what exactly was the direction given by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21534/2004 dated 06.08.2004 it is necessary to incorporate paragraph 4 of the judgment, which reads as under:
“4. We are of the view, under the guise of receiving the money if the financiers indulge in any activity which is punishable under the I.P.C police can register cases and take appropriate action. All the same, there are many persons who are conducting money lending business strictly in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of the Money Lenders Act. If complaint is received police will have to conduct enquiries and only if they are satisfied that offence has been committed, police would register cases and proceed in accordance with law. Police cannot characterize all persons who are conducting money lending business as “blade mafia” and apprehend their agents and register cases against them. In other words, each complaint has to be examined on its merits and only if there is some basis in the complaint, police would act. With the above observation this writ petition is disposed of.”
5. Reading of entire paragraph indicate no where it prohibits the respondent Police to conduct a search in accordance with the procedure. In the present case, after obtaining necessary permission from the Magistrate Court, they have conducted a search. Learned Senior Counsel emphasizes the word 'complaint' referred to in paragraph 4 of the judgment. It is needless to say, complaint includes oral complaint and reliable information. If the informer intends not to disclose his name, it is still within the authority of the respondent police not to disclose the informer's identity. There is no procedure requiring the police to inform persons like petitioner before conducting search that they have received an information or oral complaint.
6. Even otherwise, in the matters of this nature, especially where Court can take judicial notice of the fact that hire purchase of vehicles business do involve certain degree of violation of procedure contemplated, which was pointed out time and again by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Police can secure information from the informer whose identity they need not disclose. In the light of procedure being followed by police, we cannot find fault with the Police in the present case. If any procedure is not followed before conducting the search and if it touches the reputation of petitioner firm, they are at liberty to seek damages against the Department in accordance with the procedure contemplated.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is closed for the present.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/17/06