JUDGMENT : The above captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of orders passed by the Chairperson or Members of the Kerala State Police Complaints Authority constituted in accordance with section 110 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, except W.P.(C) Nos.11988/2015, 34078/2017 and 6040/2018. However, I am of the considered opinion that, the said three writ petitions can also be disposed of along with the other writ petitions. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass a common judgement. Individual reference to the facts of each writ petitions is not required, since the basic question raised in the writ petitions is, the power of the Chairperson or the Members to pass orders on complaints filed by aggrieved persons. 2. The Kerala State Police Complaints Authority is constituted by the State Government for examining and enquiring; (i) complaints on all types of misconduct against Police officers and above the rank of Superintendent of Police. (ii) grave complaints against officers of other ranks in respect of sexual harassment of women in custody or causing death of any person or inflicting grievous hurt on any person or rape, etc. 3. The State Authority shall consist of the following members, namely :- (i) a retire Judge of a High Court who shall be the Chairperson of the Authority. (ii) an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to Government. (iii) an officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police. (iv) a person as may be fixed by the Government, in consultation with the Leader of Opposition, from the three member panel of retired suitable officers not below the rank of Inspector General of Police furnished by the Chairman of the State Human Rights Commission; and (v) a person as may be fixed by the Government, in consultation with the Leader of Opposition, from a three member panel of retired suitable District Judges furnished by the State Lok Ayuktha. 4. As per sub-section (3) of section 110, the Government is vested with powers to constitute the Police Complaints Authority at District level for examining and enquiring the complaints against the Police Officers of and up to the said rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which shall be consisted of; (i) a retired District Judge, who shall be the Chairperson. 4. As per sub-section (3) of section 110, the Government is vested with powers to constitute the Police Complaints Authority at District level for examining and enquiring the complaints against the Police Officers of and up to the said rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which shall be consisted of; (i) a retired District Judge, who shall be the Chairperson. (ii) the District Collector; and (iii) the District Superintendent of Police The proviso thereto enables the Government to appoint Chairperson of one District Authority to be appointed as the Chairperson of more than one District Authorities. 5. The formidable contention advanced by the petitioners in the writ petitions is that, the Chairperson or the Members of the State Authority or the District Authority cannot function independently and the authority constituted as per the provisions of section 110 of the Act will have to perform their functions in unison. Admittedly in the captioned writ petitions, except three writ petitions referred above, Chairperson/Members of the State Police Complaints Authority have passed orders individually either dismissing the complaints or finding guilt against the erring Police Officers recommending disciplinary enquiry and payment of compensation. In some of the cases, evidences were taken from the witnesses of the complainants as well as the respondents. In some of the cases, petitioners have a case that, no opportunity was provided by the Chairperson or the Members for cross-examining and hearing. Consequent to passage of such orders in some of the cases, the Government have conducted enquiries and also paid compensation. Now the question emerges for consideration is, whether the orders passed by the Chairperson or the Members independent of the Authority constituted under Section 110 can be sustained under law or not ? 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Senior Government Pleader as well as other counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 7. In most of the cases, counter affidavits/statements are filed by the respondents justifying the passage of order by the Chairperson or the Members individually. On a reading of section 111 of the Kerala Police Act, it is clear that, there is no power vested on the Chairperson or the Members to function independent of the Authority constituted as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act. On a reading of section 111 of the Kerala Police Act, it is clear that, there is no power vested on the Chairperson or the Members to function independent of the Authority constituted as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In order to enable the Chairperson or the Members to function independently, there should have been power conferred under the Act, 2011 or there should have been power conferred on the Chairman to bifurcate the authorities and function independently. No such power is conferred in the Kerala Police Act, 2011. There is no rule formulated for the purpose of distribution of the work among the Chairperson and the Members. 8. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, the orders passed by the Chairperson or the Members cannot be sustained under law. The orders so passed are clearly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the grievances highlighted by the petitioners in the writ petitions against such orders passed in the writ petitions and the relief sought accordingly are granted. The orders so passed by Chairperson or the Members are quashed. There will be a direction to the State Police Complaints Authority/District Complaints Authority to reconsider the said complaints de novo. However, I make it clear that, the evidence adduced by the respective parties need not be interfered with and the same need not be eschewed also. The Complaints Authority will be at liberty to find out whether the parties shall be given further opportunity to adduce evidence. If in any case, it is found that, opportunity for cross-examination is not provided, the same shall be provided to the respective authorities. In this context, section 112 of the Act, 2011 is relevant, which read thus : 112. Procedure of the Complaints Authorities be expedited.--(1) The Police complaints Authorities shall take immediate steps on the complaints coming before it for their consideration. In this context, section 112 of the Act, 2011 is relevant, which read thus : 112. Procedure of the Complaints Authorities be expedited.--(1) The Police complaints Authorities shall take immediate steps on the complaints coming before it for their consideration. (2) The Authority may required any officer to do any of the following matters where it is convinced that there is merit in a complaint which came before it for consideration and such officer shall carry out the same,-- (a) to question and record the statement of any witness; (b) to trace, examine and seize any relevant records;' (c) to conduct any inspection or test in which the said officer has authority or competence or expertise; (d) to render such reasonable assistance taking into account the nature of each complaint. (3) Complainants Authority may call for a report from the Police or Government in respect of important matters in complaint which is under its consideration. (4) In connection with the inquiry being conducted by the Complaints Authority, the Police Officer concerned may be permitted to produce evidence to depose directly and to cross examine witnesses on occasion suitable and practicable. 9. Therefore, in my considered opinion, before orders are passed reasonable opportunity shall be provided to the respective parties in the course of adjudication contemplated as per sections 110 to 112. In some of the cases, consequent to the orders passed by the Chairperson or the Members, the State Government have initiated disciplinary proceedings, payment of compensation to the victims etc. etc. Therefore, such proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time the orders are passed by the State Police Complaints Authority in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2011 as directed above, and will be guided by such orders passed by the State Government. 10. In some of the writ petitions, Police Officers have a case that, since the complaints are made against the Officers below the rank of Superintendent of Police, the State Police Complaints Authority is not vested with powers to entertain the same. However, I am of the considered opinion that, irrespective of the prohibition created under Section 110(1)(i) of Act, 2011, the Complaints Authority is vested with ample powers under section 110(1)(ii) to see whether the complaints against the officers below the rank of Superintendent of Police are of such a grave nature and proceed accordingly. However, I am of the considered opinion that, irrespective of the prohibition created under Section 110(1)(i) of Act, 2011, the Complaints Authority is vested with ample powers under section 110(1)(ii) to see whether the complaints against the officers below the rank of Superintendent of Police are of such a grave nature and proceed accordingly. By virtue of the powers conferred section 110(1)(ii), it is for the Complaints Authority to do the necessary in accordance with law. If any of the respondents files any such application, same shall also be taken into account and pass orders accordingly by the State Police Complaints Authority. 11. So far as W.P.(C) Nos.6040/2018 & 11988/2015 are concerned, petitioners are seeking direction for disposal of complaints on an early basis. Therefore, the State Police Complaints Authority shall dispose of the complaint at the earliest possible time, after providing an opportunity of participation to both the parties. So far as W.P.(C) No.34078/2017 is concerned, same is seeking transfer of Ext.P1 complaint from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam to be heard by the Chairperson. However, since I have already held that, the Chairperson is not vested with powers to act individually, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners cannot be sustained under law. However, if any application is made to the State Police Complaints Authority seeking any posting in the camp at Ernakulam, same shall be considered in accordance with law. The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent.