Dismissed

Bala Ravanan v. the Kerala Lok Ayukta

Kerala HC17 Oct 2022WP(C)/2419/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition against a Lok Ayukta order. While accepting the matter was civil in nature, the court noted records were already seized. The court directed the Lok Ayukta to decide the complaint expeditiously with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is disposed of; Lok Ayukta directed to dispose of Complaint No.989/17C expeditiously with hearing.

Bala Ravanan Vs the Kerala Lok Ayukta — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2419 OF 2019

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

BALA RAVANAN

¶11

AGED 40 YEARS S/O. LATE BALAN, SREELANKAPURI, CHERUNNIYOOR P.O., CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.V.K.ANJU SRI.C.P.ABHILASH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 33.

¶15

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 005.

¶16

3 THE TAHSILDAR, THE TALUK OFFICE, VARKALA TALUK, VARKALA VILLAGE 695 141.

¶17

4 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THE TALUK OFFICE, VARKALA 695 141.

¶18

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAMPOOR VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE,

¶19

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

¶20

¶21

MANAMPOOR, VARKALA TALUK, 695 144

¶22

6 JINCY JALEEL, D/O. ABDUL JALEEL, RESIDING AT OASIS, THOTTAKKADU, MANAM BOOR VILLAGE 695 144.

¶23

7 JASIM ABDUL SALAM, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. ABDUL SALAM, M.S. VILLA, MUDIYAKKODU DESOM, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 144.

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 TO R5 SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R6

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2022

¶30

S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.

¶31

Beofre the LokAyukta, Mr.Jasim Abdul Salam – respondent No.7 herein, raised a complaint against officials respondents and one Mr.Balaravanan, for the following reliefs:

¶32

(i) Direct respondents 1 and 2 to cancel Ext P13, P14, P15, P16, P17 and P18 documents.

¶33

(ii) Direct respondents 1 to 3 restore the total extent of 53.03 ares of property in Sy No. 305/7 in Thandaper No. 12794/17 in favour of complainant and to receive tax thereof for the entire property from complainant.

¶34

(iii) Report the mal-administration of respondent to 2 to the appropriate authority and to recommend taking of appropriate action against them. iv) Direct competent authority to take appropriate action against 2nd respondent for the forgery, etc he has committed in passing Ext.P13 order.

¶35

After hearing the complainant and considering the materials on record, the

¶36

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

¶37

¶38

LokAyukta, in Complaint NO.989/17C dated 25^th August, 2017, directed as

¶39

hereunder:

¶40

"3. In the meanwhile, allowing I.A 1463/17 I also direct the Dy.S.P attached to the Investigating Agency of this Forum to conduct search and seizure of the following records from the offices of respondents 1 and 3 and produce them before this Forum by the next posting date. I pass this order invoking my powers u/s 10 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act as I am prima facie satisfied that summons if issued to respondents 1 to3, they would not produce or even cause to be produced the documents enlisted hereunder which will be necessary and highly relevant for investigation that is to be conducted in this complaint.

¶41

List of records to be seized and produced are;

¶42

(a) Original file pertaining to grant of Ext. P13 order from office of 1st respondent.

¶43

(b) Original file pertaining to issuance of Ext. P15 to P18 from the office of 3rd respondent.

¶44

¶45

(d) Original inward register containing the entry in respect of application submitted by 5th respondent which lead to passing of Ext P13 order from the office of R1.

¶46

(e) Original outward register containing the entry pertaining to issuance of Ext. P13 order from the office of R1.

¶47

(f) Original inward register containing entry pertaining to the application

¶48

which lead to the issuance of Ext. P14 to P18, (9) Original outwards register containing entry pertaining to the issuance of Ext. P15 to P18.

¶49

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

¶50

¶51

(h) Such other documents deem fit and proper in view of the nature of complaint and the proposed enquiry.

¶52

Post on 18.9.2017.”

¶53

Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed by Mr.Balaravanan – respondent No.5 in the complaint.

¶54

The grounds raised in the writ petition are that; the issues involved in this case is purely of civil nature and Ext.P2 decree having attained finality at the time of issuance of documents after correcting the errors crept in is not maladministration and further aspects are to be considered in the Regular First Appeal filed subsequently and pending consideration before this Court, and therefore, the Kerala LokAyukta - 1st respondent, has no right to intervene in the same.

¶55

It is further contended by the petitioner that the allegations raised against the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, the Tahsildar, Varkala Village & the Additional Tahsildar, Varkala Village - respondents 2 to 4, with regard to the discharge of their official duties are entirely false and created to harass the petitioner.

¶56

It is also the contention of the petitioner that once the matter is pending in appeal before this Court in the appeal preferred subsequently against Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, interference by the 1st respondent LokAyukta is exceeding the jurisdiction

¶57

vested in it. According to the petitioner, in fact there is no maladministration at all

¶58

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

¶59

¶60

for arriving at a prima facie conclusion to proceed against the issuance of corrected co-related documents marked as Exhibit P5 filed along with the written objections filed by respondents 2 to 4 herein, who are respondents 1 to 3 in Ext.P3 complaint.

¶61

According to the petitioner, the entire directions issued in Ext.P6 is beyond the scope of the consideration in Ext.P3 submitted by Mr.Jasim Abdul Salam - 7th respondent/complainant, who has no locus standi at all being only the husband of the defendant in O.S. No.64/2013 and 2nd plaintiff in O.S.9/2015 and son-in-law of 1st plaintiff in O.S.9/2015 and he has no title to the property.

¶62

Further, the entire proceedings is actually initiated by the father-in law of the complainant through his son-in-law being the power of attorney holder who is conducting all the cases. He himself is the husband of the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No.9/2015 and father of the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.9/2015 and defendant in O.S.64 of 2013. Being defeated in the suit, the present proceedings without recognizing the above, is totally illegal and unsustainable and hence Ext. P6 deserves to be quashed.

¶63

According to the petitioner, the failure to recognize this aspect has resulted in a prima facie assumption to issue Ext.P6 orders, which is illegal and unsustainable and in an attempt to obtain orders beyond the existing civil court's decree which alone is implemented and there is no maladministration by the concerned Government Officers, who have only done their duty.

¶64

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

¶65

¶66

It is also contended by the petitioner that once this Court is seized of the mater in the First Appeal, it is for this Court to issue appropriate orders if there is anything illegal and till such time no such interference is there, the direction in Ext.P6 is most unwarranted and beyond the scope of the jurisdiction vested in the 1^st respondent LokAyukta and hence deserves to be quashed.

¶67

It is further contended that in O.S No.64/2013, considering the pleading and averments, a judgment dated 9.11.2016 has already been passed and in the above said circumstances, LokAyukta has no jurisdiction to call for the records in a case, which is of civil nature alleging maladministration.

¶68

Per contra, Mr.M.R.Rajesh – learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 & 7, submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by the LokAyukta in Complaint No.989/2017C, all the records have been seized and produced before the LokAyukta and thus, the interim order dated 25^th August, 2017 in Complaint No.989/2017C has already been worked out. He has also submitted that as on today, the challenge made to the interim order does not survive and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶69

It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the contention that Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to enter into the matter, being civil nature and alleging maladministration, is raised first time before this Court and therefore, the Lok Ayukta may be requested to take up the said contention as a preliminary issue

¶70

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

¶71

¶72

and proceed further in the matter.

¶73

Submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.

¶74

As already pointed out by learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 that

¶75

the records as directed to be seized and produced before the LokAyukta vide interim order dated in Complaint No.989/17C, have already been seized and produced and therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in the matter.

¶76

However, in as much as contention has been raised to the effect that the subject matter is of civil nature and that the LokAyukta has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, the same be considered as a preliminary issue and accordingly, Complaint No.989/17C be disposed of.

¶77

Giving due consideration to the pleadings and averments, we request the Kerala LokAyukta to consider the above and dispose of Complaint No.989/17C, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

¶78

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶79

Sd/- S.MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶80

smv

¶81

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶82

W.P.(C)No.2419/2019

¶83

¶84

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2419/2019

¶85

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶86

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. 64/2013 DATED 9.11.2016 OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. 64/2013 DATED 9.11.2016 OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT LOK AYUKTHA AS COMPLAINT NO. 989/2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FILED IN COMPLAINT NO. 989/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.8.2017 IN COMPLAINT NO. 989/2017-C

Bala Ravanan v. the Kerala Lok Ayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala Ravanan v. the Kerala Lok Ayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eldhose Saju Vs Union of India

M/S. Aster D M Healthcare Limited Vs the Additional Director General of Police

K.K.Shailaja Vs Union of India

P.v.Balakrishnan Vs District Collector

Arshid K.L. Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs M.M. Hussain