Allowed

Abdul Samad v. the Director, Vigilance & Anti Corrupti

Kerala HC6 Jul 2012WP(C)/4389/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged misappropriation of funds by respondents 4 and 5 by the Gram Panchayath. After a prior petition gave liberty to represent the Panchayath, the petitioner filed another representing such inaction. Court directed the Panchayath to take warranted action expeditiously, within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Panchayath to take action on the representation as warranted by law within eight weeks.

Abdul Samad Vs the Director, Vigilance & Anti Corrupti — Corruption | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012/15TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4389 of 2008 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL SAMAD, S/O.MOIDUTTY, THEKKPAINIKKAL, THAZHE ANGADI, PAINKANNOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676 552.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.

¶11

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676 505.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY, VALANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VALANCHERRY, PIN- 676 552, MALAPPURAM.

¶13

4. FIROZE BABU K.M., PRESIDENT, VALANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT VYVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD NO.S.IND(M) 122, VALANCHERRY P.O, PIN -676 552, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

5. ACHUTHAN.E.P., SECRETARY, VALANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD., NO.S.IND(M) 122, VALANCHERRY P.O. PIN- 676 552, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MUHAMMED SHAFI, R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN, S.C.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.4389/2008-V:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CATEGORICAL STATEMENT OF THE R.2. IN RESPECT OF VALANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.

¶21

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 30/03/2000 OF THE R.4. TO THE R.3.

¶22

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE FULLY VOUCHED CONTINGENT BILL OF THE R.3. ALONG WITH VOUCHER SIGNED BY THE R.4.

¶23

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 5TH RESPONDENT AND R.3. AS PER WHICH THE R.5. RECEIVED RS.3,62,000/- FROM R.3.

¶24

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE FULLY VOUCHED CONTINGENT BILL OF THE R.3. ALONG WITH VOUCHER SIGNED BY THE R.5.

¶25

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 30/12/2004 OF THE R.3. TO R.5. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/05/2004 OF THE R.3. TO THE R.5.

¶26

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/07/2006 OF THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/05/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.15847/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶27

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11/06/2007 TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ALONG WITH POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.4389 of 2008

¶34

Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2012

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner had raised an allegation that respondents 4 and 5 misappropriated the funds received from the third respondent. He approached this Court by filing W.P.(c) No.15847 of 2007. That writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to represent the Panchayath for taking up proceedings against respondents 4 and 5. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation to the Panchayath. Complaining of inaction on Ext.P10, the writ petition was filed.

¶37

Thus the grievance of the petitioner is one of inaction on the part of the Panchayath on Ext.P10. If there is any substance in what the petitioner alleges, the respondents 4 and 5 ought to be proceeded against and if there is inaction on the part of the Panchayath on Ext.P10, Panchayath is guilty of latches.

¶38

Therefore, I direct the Panchayath to take action on

¶39

W.P.(C).No.4389/2008

¶40

: 2 :

¶41

Ext.P10 as is warranted by law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of

¶42

production of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶45

Abdul Samad v. the Director, Vigilance & Anti Corrupti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Samad v. the Director, Vigilance & Anti Corrupti

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

Mr.M.I.Shihabudheen Vs v.M.Shamsudheen

Paulose Vs National Highway Authority of India

Abdul Majeed Vs the State of Kerala

Siddique Kalathil Vs Sobhana Kamala Sudarsana Rao

Rema N.K. Vs M.Nandakumar

Jayaprakash P.M. Vs Secretary, Vatakara Municipality