Dismissed

S.Dileep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2022WP(C)/33097/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's prayer for CBI investigation, finding that VACB has conducted meaningful investigations in thirteen cases with six charge sheets filed. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court again in the future.

What did the court decide?

Directed VACB to complete investigation in specified crimes within 6 months/1 year; petitioner granted liberty to approach court in future.

S.Dileep Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 33097 OF 2016

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

S.DILEEP S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SUNAINA MANZIL, RUBY NAGAR, CHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 036. BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.EBIN MATHEW SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY SRI.A.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1	STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT & VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2	THE HONBLE CHIEF MINISTER GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3	THE MININSTER FOR INDUSTRIES GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4	THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
5	THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ECONOMIC & REVENUE SECTOR AUDIT) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
6	THE PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRUCTING AND INTERNAL AUDIT BOARD RIAB USRA - 54, UDARASHIROMANI ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.
7	THE DIRECTOR VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
8	THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003
9	THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERAL SMALL INDUSTIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HOSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
10	SAJI BASHEER S/O.BASHEER, 7/C 10/747-1, SURYA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, SULTHANA, MANAMOOLA, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 005.
11	S.GEETHA AGM SIDCO, SIDCO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶9

¶10

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶11

12 IVAN DILEEP KUMAR HEAD TRADING SIDCO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 13 IVAN DILEEPKUMAR HEAD TRADING, SIDCO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 14 MS.BHEEMA JEWELLERY JEWEL JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM 682 016, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BINDU MADHAV. 15 MS.GREEN TV GEETHANJALI, TC 17/673, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 012. 16 K.A.MOHANDAS PROPRIETOR, LINK LAND TRADERS, KALLALAYIL HOUSE, AMBELIPADAM ROAD, VYTTILA - 682 019. 17 MS.HEBRON ACQUA FOODS V.M.COMPLEX, 41/1313 A5, GROUND FLOOR, C.P.UMMER ROAD, NEAR KSRTC, COCHIN 682 035. 18 RANJITH E.RAVEENDRAN SUKRITHAKIRAN SOFTWARE TECHNOLGIES PVT. LTD., GINSALAYAM, TC 13/603, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. BY ADVS. ALEXANDER PETER SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA M .ANJU THOMAS M.BINDUDAS K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN DEEPAK MOHAN D.FEROZE JOMY GEORGE A.MINI JOSEPH R.T.PRADEEP S.RAJEEV T.K.SHAIJ RAJ V.VINAY BIJU G., SC, SIDCO MANU S., ASG OF INDIA

¶12

SRI. RAJESH.A (SPL.G.P.(VIGILANCE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of Nove mber , 2022

¶18

The petitioner seeks CBI investigation in respect of

¶19

the allegations of corruption and related offences stated to have been committed by respondent Nos.10 to 18, while respondent No.10 was acting as the Managing Director of SIDCO and later as Managing Director of Kerala State Industrial Enterprises (KSIE). The petitioner inter alia raises the following allegations:-

¶20

Respondent No.10 amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.

¶21

Respondent No.10 and his men colluded and conspired illegally and criminally to enter into an agreement with respondent No.14 to transfer 5.13 acres of land belonging to SIDCO adjacent to Ernakulam South Railway Station for construction of a multi storied commercial complex.

¶22

Respondent Nos.10 to 18 obtained illegal gain in

¶23

the transactions relating to the transfer of land

¶24

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶25

¶26

mentioned above.

¶27

In the purchase of Di-ammonium Phosphate (DAP) to be supplied to Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Fedaration Limited, Lucknow, respondent Nos.10 to 18 adopted illegal and irregular procedures and misappropriated money.

¶28

Respondent No.10 caused the SIDCO to float a tender for supply of packed bitumen, without any experience or expertise in the field, and without proper evaluation, causing huge loss to the public sector.

¶29

Respondent No.10 and SIDCO got involved in supply of sand from other States and caused huge loss to the SIDCO in the process.

¶30

Respondent No.10 had also indulged in large scale manipulations in the appointments in Kerala SIDCO.

¶31

The petitioner filed complaint raising the allegations before the Chief Minister of Kerala and the Director of Vigilance and thereafter he filed complaint

¶32

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶33

¶34

before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The Special Judge directed investigation in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge directed investigation in the matter, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau is not effectively conducting investigation. Therefore, the petitioner seeks transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶35

Respondent No.10 filed a counter affidavit denying the entire allegations. It is submitted by respondent No.10 that the petitioner is making false complaints against him with oblique motive to settle a score of personal vendetta against him.

¶36

The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the report prepared by the Superintendent of Police (Intelligence), Vigilance & AntiCorruption Bureau, narrates the progress of the investigation conducted in various crimes registered based on the allegations in Ext.P1 complaint.

¶37

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶38

¶39

Heard Sri. Dinesh R.Shenoy, the learned

¶40

counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajesh A, the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance),

¶41

Sri.Rajagopalan Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.9, Sri.R.T Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10, Sri.T.K Shaij Raj, the learned counsel for the 14^th respondent, Sri.Jomy George and Smt.Anju Thomas, the learned counsel for the 15^th respondent, Sri.Alexander Peter, the learned counsel for the 16^th respondent.

¶42

The report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Intelligence), Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau shows that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau(in short “VACB”) had registered the following crimes:-

¶43

V.C.No.4/2016 of VACB Special Cell,

¶44

Thiruvananthapuram.

¶45

V.C No. 1/2015 of VACB Palakkad Unit.

¶46

V.C No. 28/2016 of VACB Thrissur Unit.

¶47

V.C No. 2/2014 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-

¶48

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶49

¶50

II, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶51

V.C No. 2/2017 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-I,

¶52

Thiruvananthapuram.

¶53

V.C No. 1/2018 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶54

V.C No. 5/2019 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶55

V.C No. 2/2019 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶56

V.C No. 1/2020 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶57

V.C No. 5/2018 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-

¶58

I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶59

V.C No. 5/2019 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-

¶60

I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶61

V.C No. 3/2018 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-

¶62

I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶63

V.C No. 2/2022 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-

¶64

I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶65

¶66

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶67

It is also reported that out of the 13 cases registered at various units of VACB against respondent No.10, in six cases charge sheets have been finally submitted before the Court concerned after getting sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act. Six cases are

¶68

at the verge of completion of investigation and in the remaining one case, which is recently registered, investigation is progressing.

¶69

The present status of the investigation conducted by the VACB is narrated in the report which reads thus:-

¶70

“Present Status

¶71

During the course of investigation the A1 filed an O.P (Crl)No.375/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Keala praying to set aside the Order of Hon'ble Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance) Thiruvananthapuram. In this regard Advocate General of Kerala directed to file detailed statement on 22.08.2022. The Case is under investigation. The approximate period of completion of the case is expected to be within 6 months.

¶72

(ag) VC 39/2016/TSR-VC registered based on QV 75/15/TSR.

¶73

The allegation is that the accused illegally allowed to pocess the Industrial Plots of SIDCO.

¶74

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶75

¶76

Investigation completed and charge sheeted before EC & SJ, TSR on 10/03/2022 as CC 04/22.

¶77

It is respectfully submitted that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) has conducted very meaningful investigation and enquiry in almost all the allegation stated in the writ petition. It may be noted that thirteen cases were registered at the various units of VACB against the 10th respondent. Among these cases six cases were charge sheeted and it is under trial before the respective trial court. Remaining six cases are at the verge of completion of the investigation and the remaining one case is just registered. Moreover the VACB conducted 23 Quick Verifications on the irregularities pointed out in Exhibit P3 by the 5th respondent and submitted report to the Government. The recommendation of the VACB in all these quick verification were accepted by the Government and directed the concerned administrative department for taking further action. Hence it is prayed that by considering the facts submitted in this report, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. ”

¶78

It is revealed from the report of the

¶79

Superintendent of Police (Intelligence) Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau that in the following crimes VACB has submitted the final reports before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge.

¶80

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶81

¶82

V.C.No.4/2016 of VACB Special Cell,

¶83

Thiruvananthapuram.

¶84

V.C No. 1/2015 of VACB Palakkad Unit.

¶85

V.C No. 28/2016 of VACB Thrissur Unit.

¶86

V.C No. 2/2014 of VACB Special Investigation UnitII, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶87

V.C No. 2/2017 of VACB Special Investigation UnitI, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶88

V.C No. 1/2018 of VACB Special Investigation UnitI, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶89

In the following crimes investigation in the final

¶90

stage .

¶91

V.C No. 5/2019 of VACB Special Investigation UnitI, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶92

V.C No. 2/2019 of VACB Special Investigation UnitI, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶93

V.C No. 1/2020 of VACB Special Investigation UnitI, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶94

V.C No. 5/2018 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-

¶95

I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶96

V.C No. 5/2019 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-

¶97

¶98

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶99

I, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶100

V.C No. 3/2018 of VACB Special Investigation Unit-

¶101

I, Thiruvananthapuram

¶102

The VACB further submitted that in V.C

¶103

No.2/2022 of VACB Special investigation Unit-I, Thiruvananthapuram, the investigation is in the preliminary stage and they require one year for completing the investigation.

¶104

It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation regarding the merits of the contentions raised by the respective parties. The materials placed before the Court would reveal that a meaningful investigation is being conducted by the VACB in respect of all the allegations levelled by the petitioner in Ext.P1 complaint against respondent Nos.10 to 18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that any change of investigation as prayed for from the part of the petitioner is not required. However, having regard to the fact that the transactions involved relate to the period from 2010 onwards, there has to be a direction

¶105

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶106

¶107

to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to complete the investigation with respect to the remaining crimes in which final report is yet to be filed, within a time frame. The VACB is therefore directed to complete the investigation in the crime numbers mentioned in paragraph 10 of this order, within a period of 6 months. In respect of VC No.2/2022, the VACB shall complete the investigation within a period of one year from this date. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach this Court seeking appropriate remedy, if he is so advised, in future.

¶108

This writ petition is closed as above.

Sd/-

K.BABU

JUDGE

W.P (C)No.33097 OF 2016

¶114

¶115

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33097/2016

¶116

PETITIONER	EXHIBITS
EXT.P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 9/6/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER TOGETHER WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
EXT.P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF THE RIAB, KERALA, THE 6TH RESPONDENT, DATED 9/5/2016, OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXT.P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXT.P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7/11/2012 IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY
EXT.P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 12/3/2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT
EXT.P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 23/3/2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
EXT.P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGE NO.29 OF THE NOTES FILE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXT.P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 14/11/2012
EXT.P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 22/6/2013 IN THE NEW IDDIAN EXPRESS

S.Dileep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dileep 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

Radhanandan Vs State of Kerala

Sabu, S/O. Sivan, Vs State of Kerala

Charlie Vs State of Kerala

Kootta Mohanan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ponnan, S/O.Madhavan Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Excise Inspecto

A.P. Krishnan,S/O. Kori, Vs State of Kerala