Dismissed

Kadakampally Manoj v. Kerala Minerals & Metals Chavara

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/6888/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the CBI to investigate alleged corruption, including inflated raw material pricing and unauthorized dealings, at Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. Based on subsequent developments where investigating agencies submitted reports and further action was dropped, the Court found no cause for direction and dismissed the petition. Reliance was placed on the status

What the court decided

AI extract

Kadakampally Manoj Vs Kerala Minerals & Metals Chavara — Corruption | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.6888 OF 2013(S)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

KADAKAMPALLY MANOJ

¶10

AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KADAKAMPALLY HOUSE, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-10.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 KERALA MINERALS & METALS

¶15

CHAVARA REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHAVARA, KOLLAM – 691 001.

¶16

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶17

KERALA MINERALS & METALS LTD., CHAVARA, KOLLAM – 691 001.

¶18

3 THE SECRETARY

¶19

INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶20

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶21

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SMT. LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU, SR GP FOR R3 AND R4, SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S AJITHKUMAR SC FOR R5

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C)No.6888 of 2013

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2021

¶28

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶29

In the instant public interest litigation, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the 5^th respondent, Cochin Unit of Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' for short), to take over the investigation concerning the transactions mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 8 and take appropriate action on the basis of the finding arrived at by the 5^th respondent in accordance with law. The writ petition is filed for bringing to the notice of this court the widespread corruption in the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (1^st respondent) at the instance of some of the officers, trade union leaders and politicians and seeking the intervention of this court to have the affairs of the 1^st respondent enquired into by the CBI.

¶30

The Company Secretary, Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (respondent No.1) has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.7.2013. Relevant portions of the same are extracted hereunder:

¶31

“7. The allegation that even though the 1^st respondent had sufficient capacity for production of synthetic rutile without purchasing illmenite, the political union leaders conspired with their henchmen and submitted proposal and tenders for purchase of 12,000 ton of synthetic rutile from outside source is totally incorrect and is hereby denied. As already mentioned,

¶32

W.P.(C)No.6888 of 2013

¶33

¶34

the purchase of illmenite was for smooth functioning of the plant since the availability and collection of raw materials was restricted. At any rate, the allegation made by the petitioner is totally without any basis and has not even tried to establish the said fact except making bald allegations.

¶35

The allegation contained in para. 5 of the Writ Petition are not correct and hereby denied. It is respectfully submitted that the price of the product of the company has been fixed by the Marketing Promotion Committee consisting of Executive Directors, Joint General Manager, Assistant General Manager (Marketing) etc from time to time. The pricing depends on various factors including variation of domestic as well as international marketing price of the product, stock position of the Company, import duty etc. Marketing officials alone cannot decide the price of the product and they are not working under the instruction of any local union leaders as alleged in the Writ Petition. Once the pricing is fixed by the committee, it will be ratified in the Board of Directors meeting of the 1^st respondent.

¶36

The allegation in para. 6 of the Writ Petition that Mr. Raghavan purchased 245 tonnes of trymet while there was already a stock of 125 tonnes, is not correct and is hereby denied. Infact the procurement of 223.20 MT of Trimet has been kept in abeyance and further action will be initiated only when the stock position comes down.

¶37

The allegation that the local union leaders had indulged in unauthorized dealings in the materials department causing loss of crores of rupees is not correct and is hereby denied. As regards purchase of pump, the vigilance had initiated an enquiry and the said enquiry is still pending. It is submitted that the 1^st respondent had issued orders of suspension

¶38

W.P.(C)No.6888 of 2013

¶39

¶40

pending enquiry against 3 officers of the materials department suspecting that they have involved in the conspiracy in allowing M/s SITCO a local company to participate in the tender process for supply of Calcined Petroleum Coke. The 1^st respondent had issued memo of charges and have ordered an enquiry by appointing an advocate as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry proceedings started on 29.12.2012. While the enquiry was progressing, the government ordered a vigilance enquiry on the above subject. The Petroleum Coke supplied by M/s SITCO at the initial stage failed. Out of the 2760 tonnes of Calcined Petroleum Coke, M/s SITCO supplied only 160 tonnes out of which 110 were rejected. In other words, against the erring officers action has already been initiated by the Company as well as by the vigilance department.

¶41

The allegation that M/s Sai International Trading Company was found constituted primarily for siphoning out the resources of the 1^st respondent is not at all correct and is hereby denied. At any rate, the 1^st respondent has no dealings with the said company after they failed to supply in accordance with the purchase order.

¶42

The allegation that Sai International is having a political man at the apex and therefore nothing turned out of the enquiry is not correct and is hereby denied. When the enquiry is completed, based on the evidence and the findings of the enquiry officer, appropriate action will be taken against the erring officers of the 1^st respondent.

¶43

The allegation contained in para. 9 of the Writ Petition are not relevant as far as the issue raised in the writ petition is concerned. The allegation that the company is subjected to successive looting by various persons is totally without any

¶44

W.P.(C)No.6888 of 2013

¶45

¶46

basis, incorrect and is hereby denied. At any rate, as far as the 1^st respondent is concerned, the 1^st respondent has acted strictly in accordance with law and prompt action has been taken against the employees concerned, who were suspected of having involved in any misconduct.

¶47

The allegation by the petitioner that the suspension of Mr. Raghavan and his accomplices in the 1^st respondent is just an eye wash to fool the public from huge corruption they have been doing with the political support is absolutely incorrect and is hereby denied. Initiation of proceedings against an employee by suspending him can never be termed as an eye wash apart from that vigilance enquiry is ordered by the Government and the same is pending. The 1^st respondent has not taken any soft stand against Mr. Raghavan or nobody as alleged in the Writ Petition. Having ordered a vigilance enquiry and also a departmental enquiry are proceeding, it is respectfully submitted that there may not be any necessity of any CBI enquiry as alleged in the Writ Petition.

¶48

The allegation that there has been large scale corruption in the 1^st respondent is incorrect and is without any basis. The allegation that Sri. Subramanniam, the former Managing Director was involved in malpractices and that the same was being continued in KMIML are all totally baseless, incorrect and are hereby denied. Infact during the period when Sri. Subramannian was the Managing Director, the company recorded substantial financial growth which is a factor which cannot be denied by anybody.”

¶49

The Secretary, Industries Department (respondent No.3) has

¶50

also filed a counter affidavit. The averments therein are almost the same

¶51

W.P.(C)No.6888 of 2013

¶52

¶53

as that of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1.

¶54

On this day, when the matter came up for further hearing, by inviting the attention of this court to the order passed in VC 2/2014/KLM dated 6.12.2017 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Mrs.Latha Anand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, submitted that after a thorough investigation, a final report has been submitted before the above said court by the investigating agency and accepting the same, further action has been dropped.

¶55

In the light of the above subsequent developments, there is no further cause for any direction to be issued as prayed for. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.

¶56

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶61

vpv

¶62

W.P.(C)No.6888 of 2013

¶63

¶64

APPENDIX

¶65

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWS REPORT DATED 06.08.2012 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶67

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATED 07.08.2012 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶68

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 14.8.2012 OF THE VIGILANCE AND SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT OF KMML.

¶69

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.15.08.2011 FROM THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (COMMERCIAL) TO THE MANAGING DITRECTOR.

¶70

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWS REPORT DATED 10.11.2012 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶71

/TRUE COPY/

¶72

P.A. TO JUDGE

Kadakampally Manoj v. Kerala Minerals & Metals Chavara

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kadakampally Manoj v. Kerala Minerals & Metals Chavara

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Anoop Aniyankunju

T.M. Sivan Vs State of Kerala

Jana Smparka Samithy Vs Union of India

C.L.Anto Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Dr.Johny Kulangara Vs the Secretary to Government

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala