Dismissed

Tgn Kumar v. the Secretary

Kerala HC22 Aug 2023WP(C)/33016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A shareholder of CIAL filed a writ alleging corruption against the Managing Director. The High Court held the Central Vigilance Commission lacked jurisdiction over the company and has referred the matter to the State Government. It directed the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings and ordered the 1st respondent to serve the decision. The petition was disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pursue proceedings; 1st respondent to serve decision within one month.

Tgn Kumar Vs the Secretary — Corruption | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 33016 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

TGN KUMAR AGED 51 YEARS 33/3004, VENNALA P.O, KOCHI- 682 028. BY ADVS.BIJU ANTONY ALOOR K.P.PRASANTH VISHNU DILEEP, T.S.KRISHNENDU, ARCHANA SURESH SAKSHYA A.K.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE SECRETARYMINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 2 THE CHIEF SECRETARYGOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 3 THE CHIEF VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKTA BHAVAN, BLOCK-A, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI - 110 023. 4 S. SUHAS IAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, AIRPORT ROAD, NEDUMBASSERRY P.O., KOCHI-683 111. BY ADVS.SMT.M.SHAJNA, CGC Harikrishnan S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571) DSG- S. MANU

¶10

GP-BIMAL K. NATH

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C). No.33016 of 2022

: 2 :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

W.P.(C). No.33016 of 2022

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

i) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent himself to consider Ext.P2 complaint and pass orders/initiate action, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 representation forthwith; and iii) Issue such other orders, interlocutory or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶21

The petitioner is a shareholder of Cochin International

¶22

Airport Ltd.(CIAL), (Folio No.0017955) and he has preferred representations before respondents 1 to 3 alleging corruption on the part of the 4^th respondent, who has been given additional charge as Managing Director of CIAL. The contention taken by the

¶23

W.P.(C). No.33016 of 2022 : 3 :

¶24

petitioner in Exts. P1 and P2 representations is that the 4^th respondent is involved in corrupt activities and he is attempting to help people who are close to him in implementation of various projects of CIAL. Petitioner submits that pursuant to the complaint raised, Ext.P3 communication has been received by him from the Central Vigilance Commission(CVC), intimating that as per the complaint handling policy, the complaint will be forwarded to the CVO of the concerned department, in the present case, the 1^st respondent.

¶25

The 4^th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit refuting various allegations taken in the writ petition.

¶26

The learned Central Government Counsel upon instructions submitted that the complaint has been examined by the 1^st respondent and on finding that CIAL is a company and therefore, they have no jurisdiction over the same, the complaint has been forwarded to the State Government for taking appropriate action.

¶27

In view of the submission made by the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings pursuant to the referral of the complaint to the State Government by the 1^st

¶28

W.P.(C). No.33016 of 2022

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

respondent. To facilitate the same, the 1^st respondent shall serve a copy of the decision taken in this regard to the petitioner, within a period of one month from today.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶32

Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶33

sm/

¶34

W.P.(C). No.33016 of 2022 : 5 :

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33016/2022

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.08.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT (EXCLUDING ENCLOSURE). Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.08.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION COMPLAINT NO: 205435/ 2022/VIGILANCE-2/5260 DATED 06.09.2022.

Tgn Kumar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tgn Kumar v. the Secretary

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

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Aswin Vs State of Kerala

Kamaruddhin N.K. Vs State of Kerala

Anandavally Vs Secretary to Government, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department

N.Anil Kumar Vs Union of India

Angels Nair Vs the Principal Secretary, Foest and Wildlife Department