Dismissed

Adv. M.L.George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2016WP(C)/24049/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged alleged inaction by the Vigilance Bureau. The Court noted the Bureau had completed a preliminary inquiry recommending only civil investigation by the Corporation, rendering the plea for a criminal investigation infructuous. The Court dismissed the main relief, directing the petitioner to approach the Vigilance Special Court based on the report, while leaving public intere

What did the court decide?

Main relief for direction to complete investigation dismissed as infructuous; liberty given to file complaint before Vigilance Special Court; PIL reliefs left open.

Adv. M.L.George Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/23RD ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 24049 of 2016 (E) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ADV. M.L.GEORGE,

¶8

AVE MARIA HOUSE, ACHAMVEETTIL ROAD, PACHALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 012.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.L.GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL BODIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695 033

¶14

4. THE SECRETARY,

¶15

CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI-682011.

¶16

5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA (AUDIT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR KERALA SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, 5TH FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

R1 TO R3 SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶19

R4 BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 24049 of 2016 (E)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT. P1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE KERALA LOKAYUKTA DATED 23.6.2013. EXT. P2 COPY OF THE TIMES OF INDIA REPORT DATED 30.6.2013. EXT. P3 COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER FROM VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 11.7.2016.

¶25

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS :

¶26

NIL

¶27

// True Copy // P.A. To Judge

DSV/6/10/16

B. KEMAL PASHA, J

=================

W.P.(C).No.24049 of 2016

¶32

=================

¶33

Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part

¶36

of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, in conducting an investigation as directed by the Lok Ayukta, on the complaint preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner has come up with the Writ Petition, praying for inter alia, a direction to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to complete the investigation, within a period of three months. Two other reliefs, in the form of reliefs that can be sought for in a public interest litigation, have also been sought for.

¶37

The complainant had earlier approached

¶38

the Lok Ayukta, with a complaint, alleging corruption in the construction of the Bhrahmapuram Solid Waste

¶39

W.P.(C).No.24049 of 2016 2

¶40

Management Plant. The Lok Ayukta considered the matter and recommended for an investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau in the matter. Based on the recommendation, the Government directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to conduct a preliminary inquiry, based on the contents of Exhibit-P1 order passed by the Lok Ayukta. The preliminary investigation was delayed and consequently, the petitioner has approached this Court. Presently, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has completed the preliminary inquiry and filed the copy of report dated 13.07.2016 before this Court, with the following recommendation:

¶41

“In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, no vigilance angle is seen at this point. The Corporation of Cochin should be instructed to conduct a detailed soil investigation by a competent authority for the land filling, depth of piling and a general valuation of structure. If investigation by the Cochin Corporation reveals any vigilance angle further steps could be taken by the VACB after

¶42

W.P.(C).No.24049 of 2016 3

¶43

considering the outcome of the civil cases pending.”

¶44

Since the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

¶45

Bureau has completed the preliminary inquiry with the aforesaid recommendation, it has become evident that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau is not intending to conduct any investigation in the matter. No crime has also been registered. Therefore, the main relief, i.e., relief No.1 sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶46

If as a matter of fact, such a report on the preliminary investigation has reached the hands of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, any of the following three courses could have been resorted to by the said court. The said court could either accept the report and drop further actions; the said court could reject the report and direct a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.; or the said court could take cognizance of the offence, if any, that has come to light, based on that

¶47

W.P.(C).No.24049 of 2016

¶48

¶49

report. Here, this Court or the Lok Ayukta cannot exercise any of the aforesaid powers.

¶50

At the same time, presently, the petitioner is equipped with the report of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. It seems that some instances, which may be styled as criminal misconduct, are discernible from the report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The only course open to the petitioner is to approach the concerned Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, with a complaint, specifically alleging the instances of criminal misconduct, if any. The petitioner can rely on the findings entered by the investigating officer, in the report of the preliminary inquiry, conducted by the Vigilance Official, for the purpose of such a complaint.

¶51

With liberty to the petitioner to move such a proper complaint before proper Forum, this Writ Petition (Civil) is disposed of.

¶52

W.P.(C).No.24049 of 2016

¶53

¶54

It is made clear that the other reliefs sought for by the petitioner, by way of a public interest litigation, are left open. The petitioner can prefer such a public interest litigation seeking the said reliefs again, if so advised.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶57

DSV/5/10/16

¶58

//True Copy//

¶59

P.A.To Judge

Adv. M.L.George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv. M.L.George v. State of Kerala

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

K.K. Michael Vs State of Kerala

Shaji & Another Vs State of Kerala

K v Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Neelambaran Vs Excise Inspector

S.Joseph Vs State of Kerala & Another

S.Joseph Vs State of Kerala & Another