Disposed

State of Kerala v. C.B. Preethi

Kerala HC13 Jan 2009RP/842/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court reviewed its earlier judgment reserving liberty to object to Vigilance inquiries. Court held the liberty applies only to inquiries pending on the judgment date, not those already completed with case registration recommendations.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed; liberty to object to Vigilance enquiry reserved only for enquiries pending on the date of the judgment.

State of Kerala Vs C.B. Preethi — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930

¶5

RP.No. 842 of 2008(M)

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33512/2007 Dated 11/03/2008

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL \SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM.

¶12

DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE INVESTIGATIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LAKSHMI RANI

¶15

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶16

C.B.PREETHI, U.D.CLERK, COLLECTORATE PERINTHALMANNA UNDER SUSPENSION) R/AT NANDANAM, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PATTAMBI.

¶17

ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.GIRI, J

¶20

R.P.842/2008 in W.P.(C).33512/2007 -------------------Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2009

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Writ petition was disposed of reserving the

¶23

liberty of the writ petitioner to raise objections as regards the Vigilance enquiry as and when it is initiated against her. Review petition has been filed by the State contending that a Vigilance enquiry had been conducted much earlier and that on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of Vigilance enquiry, a report has been submitted to the Direction, Vigilance & Anti Corruption bureau with a recommendation to register a case against the respondent for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code. Obviously, if an enquiry had been completed even before the judgment and if there is a recommendation to register a case against the petitioner for offences punishable under the P.C.Act and the Indian Penal Code, then the question of permitting the petitioner to again raise an objection

¶24

R.P.842/2008

¶25

¶26

as regards the Vigilance enquiry really does not arise. Therefore, Review Petition is disposed of declaring that the right reserved in favour of the writ petitioner to raise an objection as regards any Vigilance enquiry, will be available only in relation to any Vigilance enquiry that is still pending completion on the date of the judgment and such direction will not operate in relation to any Vigilance enquiry that has already been completed before the pronouncement of the judgment.

¶27

V.GIRI, Judge

¶28

mrcs

State of Kerala v. C.B. Preethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. C.B. Preethi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rappai Vs Jino

State of Kerala Vs a.K.Muhammed Kunhi

The Travancore Devaswom Board,Tvm Vs K.R.Venugopal

Dr.P.N.Jayasingh Vs Dr.G.Rajendran

Shibu.S. Vs Union of India

Dr.Joseph Thomas Vs Union of India