Kerala High Court
Dr. K.T.Jaleel vs Sri. V.K Muhammed Shafi on 20 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.9742 OF 2021(P)
PETITIONER:
DR. K.T.JALEEL,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAHAMED HAJI,
RESIDING AT 'GAZAL', THOZHUVANOOR P.O,
VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM, MINISTER FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
SHRI.AKSHAY VENU
RESPONDENTS:
1 SRI. V.K MUHAMMED SHAFI,
S/O. HASSAN, KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, THALAMUNDA,
EDAPPAL P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 576.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 PROF. A.P ABDUL VAHAB,
CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE MINORITY DEVELOPMENT
FINANCE CORPORATION, CHAKKAROTH KALAM,
WEST HILL, CALICUT 673 005.
4 SRI.A.AKBAR,
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE MINORITY
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, CHAKKAROTH
KALAM, WEST HILL, CALICUT 673 005.
W.P.(C) No.9742 of 2021 2
5 SRI. K.T ADEEB,
KOORI MAHAL, VALANCHERY P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 552.
6 KERALA LOK AYUKTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.S.KABEER
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.E.SAJAL
R2 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R2 BY SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
R2 BY SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
R2 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR
GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMIS-
SION ON 20.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.9742 of 2021 3
C.R.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & K.BABU, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.9742 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2021.
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
Ext.P8 report submitted by the Kerala Lok Ayukta to the
Chief Minister of the State under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Lok
Ayukta Act, 1999 (the Act) in a complaint lodged by the first
respondent against the petitioner and others, is under challenge in
this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The relevant facts are the following; The petitioner
was elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in the election held
on 16.05.2016 and has been a member of the Council of Ministers of
the State since 25.05.2016. The case of the first respondent in the
complaint is that the petitioner has violated the oath of office by
abusing his position as a Minister and indulging in favouritism and
nepotism in appointing the fifth respondent as the General Manager
of the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation (the
Corporation). The prayer in the complaint was therefore, for an
investigation into the matter and to submit a report to the
competent authority with its recommendations as provided for under
Section 12(3) of the Act. There was also a prayer for a declaration
under Section 14 of the Act that the petitioner is not entitled to
continue as a Minister.
3. It is alleged by the first respondent in the
complaint that the Corporation is one constituted by the
Government of Kerala for the welfare of the minorities; that the
academic qualification prescribed by the Government for
appointment to the post of General Manager was Graduation with
MBA or CS/CA/ICWAI; that the said qualification was prescribed after
thorough deliberation and with the approval of the Council of
Ministers; that persons possessing the said qualification were
holding the office of the General Manager ever since its
establishment; that immediately on assumption of office by the
petitioner as the Minister in charge of the Minority Development
Department, which is the administrative department of the
Corporation, the Government issued an order on 18.08.2016
modifying the educational qualification prescribed for appointment
to the post of General Manager by adding B.Tech with PGDBA (Post
Graduate Diploma in Business Administration) as an alternative
educational qualification based on a note issued by the petitioner
directing such a modification. It is also alleged in the complaint that
though a query was raised by the General Administration
Department of the State Government on the said note of the
petitioner that the concurrence of the Finance Department is
required for modifying the qualification for the post since the original
qualification was prescribed with the concurrence of the Finance
Department, the petitioner intervened and directed the file to be
placed before the Chief Minister so as to get over the query, and the
Government Order dated 18.08.2016 was issued thereafter with the
orders of the Chief Minister. It is further alleged in the complaint
that there was no proposal from the Corporation to the Government
for modifying the educational qualification for the post; that
educational qualifications for the post was modified by the petitioner
with a view to facilitate the appointment of the fifth respondent, a
cousin of the petitioner who possess only the additional qualification
added by the Government in terms of the order dated 18.08.2016;
that immediately thereupon, on 25.08.2016, the Corporation issued
a notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of
General Manager; that the fifth respondent has though applied for
selection pursuant to the said invitation, he did not turn up for the
interview and no one was appointed pursuant to the said invitation
and the said selection process was later cancelled. It is further
alleged in the complaint that after sometime, the fifth respondent
submitted a request to the Managing Director of the Corporation for
appointment as General Manager on deputation basis; that the
Managing Director of the Corporation forwarded the said request to
the Government even before the fifth respondent has made
available the No-objection Certificate of his employer and that
though there was an objection raised on the said request by the
General Administration Department that the fifth respondent who
was then working in a Private Bank cannot be appointed as the
General Manager of the Corporation on deputation basis, the
petitioner overruled the said objection on 28.09.2018 and directed to
issue orders to appoint the fifth respondent as the General Manager
of the Corporation on deputation basis. It is further alleged by the
first respondent in the complaint that appointment of the fifth
respondent as General Manager of the Corporation on deputation
basis is impermissible since he was only an employee in a private
bank; that vigilance clearance is required in respect of persons to be
appointed as General Manager in all public sector undertakings and
that vigilance clearance was not obtained in the case of the fifth
respondent. It is further alleged in the complaint that the
educational qualification for the post was modified by the petitioner
solely for the purpose of facilitating the appointment of the fifth
respondent who possesses only the alternative academic
qualification prescribed for the post at the instance of the petitioner;
that appointment of the fifth respondent as General Manager of the
Corporation was solely on account of the intervention of the
petitioner and that, but for the modification of the educational
qualification made at the instance of the petitioner, the appointment
of the fifth respondent in the service of the Corporation as General
Manager would not have been possible. It is further alleged in the
complaint that the petitioner has abused his position as a public
servant to favour the fifth respondent who is his close relative; that
the action of the petitioner in modifying the qualification and
appointing the fifth respondent as General Manager of the
Corporation was actuated by personal interest and the said conduct
would amount to favouritism, nepotism and lack of integrity in the
discharge of the functions of the petitioner as a Minister of the State.
4. It is seen that on 08.02.2019, after hearing the
counsel for the first respondent and the learned Special Attorney for
the Government, the Lok Ayukta decided to conduct a preliminary
enquiry in the complaint, and directed the Government to produce
the relevant files. It appears that later on 05.02.2020, it was felt
that the respondents in the complaint shall also be given an
opportunity of hearing in the preliminary enquiry and consequently,
the Lok Ayukta issued notice before admission to the respondents in
the complaint including the petitioner. Pursuant to the said notice,
the petitioner entered appearance in the proceedings before the
Loke Ayukta and filed a written statement denying the allegations
against him in the complaint.
5. It was contended by the petitioner in the written
statement that the additional alternative qualification was
prescribed for the post of General Manager in order to attract
technically skilled persons to the post and that the fifth respondent
was appointed as General Manager on deputation basis since the
Corporation was not able to find a suitable person possessing the
qualification prescribed for the post, despite the invitation made in
that behalf. It was also contended in the written statement that the
application of the fifth respondent for appointment on deputation
basis was in fact forwarded to the Government by the Corporation
and the Government has only given effect to the proposal made by
the Corporation. It was, however, admitted by the petitioner in the
written statement that though the original prescription of the
qualification was made by the Council of Ministers of the State, the
same was modified without the concurrence of the cabinet. Similarly,
it is admitted by the petitioner in the written statement that the fifth
respondent is his cousin.
6. Having regard to the allegations in the complaint
and the stand taken by the respondents in the proceedings including
the petitioner in the written statements filed by them, and on a
perusal of the relevant files which were called for in the meanwhile,
the Lok Ayukta admitted the complaint formally on 26.03.2021. It is
seen that since the parties to the proceedings have already been
given an opportunity to file their respective pleadings and in the
absence of any further requests for filing additional pleadings or
giving evidence, the Lok Ayukta proceeded to hear the parties finally
on the complaint.
7. Thereupon, on a consideration of the arguments
advanced by the parties to the proceedings and on an evaluation of
the materials on record, the Lok Ayukta found that the action taken
by the petitioner to modify the qualification for appointment to the
post of General Manager of the Corporation was without there being
any proposal or suggestion from the Corporation; that the same was
with a view to make the fifth respondent who is his cousin eligible for
appointment to the said post and that, but for the said modification
in the qualification, the fifth respondent would not have been eligible
for appointment as General Manager in the Corporation. It was also
found by the Lok Ayukta that the action on the part of the petitioner
in directing appointment of the fifth respondent on deputation basis
on the basis of the application of the fifth respondent which was
forwarded to the Government by the Managing Director of the
Corporation without inviting any application and without providing
any opportunity to other eligible persons to apply for the post is an
action actuated by personal interest in the discharge of the function
of the petitioner as a Minister to favour his cousin. It was further
found by the Lok Ayukta that the said actions would amount to
favouritism, nepotism and also lack of integrity on the part of the
petitioner in his capacity as a Minister of the State. It was further
found by the Lok Ayukta that the conduct of the petitioner would
also amount to violation of the oath of office taken by him as a
Minister to discharge his duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-
will. The Lok Ayukta, in the circumstances, held that the allegation
of abuse of power, favouritism, nepotism and violation of oath of
office have been substantiated against the petitioner and
consequently, it was declared that the petitioner is not entitled to
continue as a member of the Council of Ministers. A report was
accordingly submitted in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act by the Lok
Ayukta to the Chief Minister, the competent authority of the public
servant involved. As noted, the said report is under challenge in the
writ petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned State Attorney as also the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the first respondent.
9. Placing reliance on Section 9(2) of the Act, it was
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that every
complaint shall be made in such form and in such manner as may be
prescribed and shall be supported by an affidavit, and the affidavit
filed by the first respondent in support of the complaint was not in
accordance with the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Form and Manner of
Complaint) Rules, 1999 in as much the same was not one drawn up
and authenticated in the manner provided in the Civil Rules of
Practice, Kerala. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of
this Court in K.Chandrasekharan v. C.Sasidharan Pillai and
another, 1994 KHC 6, in support of the said argument. It was also
contended by the learned counsel that the complaint being one
pertaining to the appointment of the fifth respondent in the service
of the Corporation, the same is not maintainable in the light of
Section 8(1) of the Act. In support of the said plea, the learned
counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in University of
Kerala v. N.R.Anil Kumar, 2020 KHC 111. It was also pointed out
by the learned counsel that there has to be a preliminary enquiry
into every complaint and after preliminary enquiry, if the Lok Ayukta
proposes to conduct any investigation into the same, it shall forward
a copy of the complaint to the public servant and also to the
competent authority of the public servant concerned and shall afford
to the public servant, an opportunity to offer his comments on the
complaint in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act. It was
contended by the learned counsel that the impugned report has
been submitted without compliance of the provisions contained in
Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act. Placing reliance on Section
12(3) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully
contended that a report under that provision is contemplated and
could be submitted only after an investigation into the complaint
involving an allegation and in the case on hand, the report under
that provision has been submitted to the competent authority of the
public servant without conducting the investigation. Similarly,
placing reliance on Section 14 of the Act, the learned counsel has
contended that the declaration under that provision is contemplated
and could be made only after an investigation into the complaint and
in the case on hand, the declaration has been made without
conducting the investigation. According to the learned counsel, the
report submitted by the Lok Ayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act
and the declaration made therein under Section 14 of the Act are
therefore, unsustainable in law. It was also pointed out by the
learned counsel that going by the scheme of the Act, the
investigation on complaints contemplated and provided under the
Act is a process of letting the parties to adduce evidence in support
of their respective cases and also by gathering materials through the
mechanism provided for under Section 16(3) of the Act. It was
pointed out that the Lok Ayukta neither afforded to the parties an
opportunity to let in evidence nor collected any materials invoking
the mechanism provided under Section 16(3) of the Act. According
to the learned counsel, the impugned report of the Lok Ayukta is
therefore, vitiated by non-compliance of the principles of natural
justice. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the
factual findings rendered by the Lok Ayukta are solely based on the
chronology of events inferred based on the oral arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and the statute does not
contemplate such a procedure for drawing a report under Section
12(3) of the Act. As regards the merits of the matter, it was
contended by the learned counsel that merely for the reason that
the fifth respondent possessed only the additional alternative
qualification ordered to be incorporated by the petitioner for
appointment to the post, it cannot be inferred that the action taken
by the petitioner almost two years before the appointment was
vitiated by favouritism or nepotism. It was also contended by the
learned counsel that the appointment of the fifth respondent as
General Manager of the Corporation on deputation basis was at the
instance of the Corporation and merely for the reason that the
Government accepted the proposal made by the Corporation, it
cannot be said that the action taken by the petitioner in this regard
is actuated by personal interest.
10. The learned State Attorney endorsed the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In
addition, placing reliance on the cause list published by the Lok
Ayukta on various dates which were handed over to the court, the
learned State Attorney submitted that there was no investigation at
all in the complaint in as much as the complaint was listed upto
26.3.2021 only for preliminary enquiry. It was pointed out that the
final hearing was on the day on which the case stood posted for
preliminary enquiry and the final report was drawn immediately
thereafter on 09.04.2021. The learned State Attorney has also
passed on to the Court the communication issued by the office of
the Lok Ayuta to the Chief Minister as provided for under Section
9(3)(a) of the Act, and contended based on the said communication
that compliance of the said provision which should have been done
before submitting the report under Section 12(3) of the Act has in
fact been done only after submitting the report. It was, therefore,
argued by the learned State Attorney that the impugned report can
only be treated as one drawn against all the principles of natural
justice as also the constitutional safeguards available to the
petitioner.
11. Learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the first
respondent supported the impugned report pointing out that the
Lok Ayukta has absolute freedom to decide the manner in which the
investigation in a given case is to be conducted and merely for the
reason that the Lok Ayukta has disposed of a complaint based on the
oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it
cannot be said that there was no investigation. It was also argued
by the learned senior counsel that the complaint in the case on hand
being one involving an allegation, the bar under Section 8(1) of the
Act does not apply. It was also argued that it cannot be said that the
affidavit filed by the first respondent is not in accordance with the
Kerala Lok Ayukta (Form and Manner of Complaint) Rules, 1999. In
reply to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the merits of the matter, it was pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsel that the factual conclusions arrived at by the
Lok Ayukta are solely based on the admitted facts and the same
cannot be said to be unsustainable on any grounds whatsoever.
12. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the
various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. In spite of a vigilant media, it is a fact that abuse
of public resources and position in public life for private gain are
rampant in our State. Abuse of public resources or position in public
life for private gain would certainly amount to corruption. The scope
of corruption would increase when control on the public
administrators is weak. The Act is one introduced to make
provisions for the appointment and functions of certain authorities
for making enquiries into any action relatable to matters specified in
List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution taken by
or on behalf of the Government of Kerala or certain public authorities
in the State of Kerala in certain cases and for matters connected
therewith or ancillary thereto. All public servants from the Chief
Minister to the members of the Panchayats are brought under the
Act. The object of the legislation is to eliminate corruption in public
service. The Act was introduced as it was felt that the mechanism
provided for in the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigation and
Inquiries) Act, 1987 which was in force then was not sufficient to
prevent effectively, the corruption among public servants. The Act
confers on the Lok Ayukta and the Upa Lok Ayuktas appointed under
the Act with solemn functions of investigating into the various acts
of omissions and commissions of public servants. In terms of the Act,
the institution of Lok Ayukta is headed by the Lok Ayukta, who shall
be either a person who held the office of the Judge of the Supreme
Court of India or that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. There
are two Upa Lok Ayuktas who held the office of the Judge of the High
Court. The Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayuktas are appointed on the
advice of the Chief Minister in consultation with the Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly and the Leader of Opposition. Going by the
scheme of the Act, especially the provisions therein as regards the
stature of the persons to be appointed as Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok
Ayuktas and the manner of their selection, it is evident that the
intention of the legislature is that the decisions of the Lok Ayukta
and Upa Lok Ayuktas shall be final. The said intention is explicit
from the fact that no appeal is provided for under the Act against
their decisions. True, the power of judicial review conferred on this
court under Article 226 of the Constitution being a basic feature of
the Constitution, a person aggrieved by the decision of the Lok
Ayukta is certainly entitled to challenge the same invoking the said
jurisdiction.
14. Now, let us understand the scope of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The justification for the
exercise of judicial review over orders of statutory bodies is to
ensure that the statutory bodies act within the confines of their
allocated powers, for they do not possess inherent jurisdiction. The
power of judicial review is therefore not directed against the
decision, but is confined to the decision making process. It is not an
appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the
decision is made and the court sits in judgment only on the
correctness of the decision making process and not on the
correctness of the decision. It is now settled that in exercise of the
said power, the court would confine itself to the questions namely,
whether the decision making authority exceeded its power,
committed an error of law, committed breach of the rules of natural
justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers [See
Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Adikanda Biswal,
(2012) 11 SCC 731]. The court would examine an error of fact
touching the merits of the decision only when it has a direct nexus to
the decision making process [See Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar v.
Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil, (2009) 13 SCC 131].
15. The various contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are to be considered in the light of the
object and the background of the Act as also the various principles
governing the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
The contention that the affidavit filed in support of the complaint is
defective
16. Section 9 of the Act deals with the provisions
relating to complaints and investigations. Sub-section (2) of Section
9 provides that every complaint shall be made in such form and in
such manner, as may be prescribed, and shall be supported by an
affidavit. The Kerala Lok Ayukta (Form and Manner of Complaint)
Rules, 1999 provides that every affidavit filed before the Lok Ayukta
shall be drawn up and authenticated in the manner provided in the
Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala. Rule 52 of the Civil Rules of Practice,
Kerala dealing with affidavit reads thus:
"52. Affidavit on information or belief.- Every affidavit shall
clearly express how much is a statement of the deponent's
knowledge and how much is a statement on his belief, as in Form
No.17. The grounds of belief must be stated with sufficient
particularity to enable the Court to judge whether it would be
safe to act on the deponent's belief."
The contention of the petitioner is that the affidavit filed by the first
respondent in support of the complaint is not in accordance with the
Kerala Lok Ayukta (Form and Manner of Complaint) Rules, 1999 in as
much as there is no verification or authentication of facts therein in
accordance with Rule 52 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala.
17. First of all, as noted, it is a case where the Lok
Ayukta has issued notice of the complaint to the petitioner before
the complaint is admitted to file. The petitioner who entered
appearance and filed written statement in the proceedings pursuant
to the said notice has not raised any objection in the written
statement filed by him as to the defect, if any, in the affidavit filed
by the first respondent. The materials on record do not indicate that
the petitioner has raised the objection aforesaid at any time later in
the proceedings also. The petitioner has no case that any prejudice
has been caused to him in the proceedings for want of a proper
affidavit. In such circumstances, the procedural defects of the
instant nature cannot be raised even in an appeal or revision
statutorily provided against the decisions of the statutory
authorities/Tribunals. Needless to say that the ground aforesaid is
not one available to the petitioner to impugn a decision of the
statutory authority in a proceedings for judicial review [See Rang
Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 8
SCC 117]. That apart, the complaint preferred by the first
respondent against the petitioner which is part of the records
contains only 11 paragraphs. The affidavit filed by the first
respondent in support of the complaint which is part of the records
reads thus:
AFFIDAVIT
I, V.K.Muhammed Shafi, S/o.Hassan, aged 36 years,
Kuttikkattil House, Thalamunda, Edappal P.O., Malappuram
District - 679576, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as follows:
1. I am the complainant in this application making
allegations of corruption and nepotism and acts which are
covered under the provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayuktha Act.
The averments as regards the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayuktha
are in terms of the provisions of the Act. The averments as
regards the actions of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 are based
on the records and the personal knowledge of the deponent.
It accordingly constitutes maladministration attracting the
provisions of Kerala Lok Ayuktha Act. The allegations are
based on documents and the personal knowledge of the
deponent in so far as the relation between the 2nd
respondent and the 5th respondent. Other averments are as
believed by the deponent to be true and correct.
All what is stated in paragraph 1 to 11 are facts which
are within the knowledge of the deponent as disclosed from
records, which are taken from the original and produced
along with the complaint constituting the basis of the
allegations and the deponent affirm that what is stated
above are true and correct.
Dated this the 26th day of January, 2019.
Deponent
Solemnly affirmed and sworn before me by
the deponent on this the 26th day of January, 2019 at my
office in Ernakulam.
P.E.Sajal
Advocate
As evident from the extracted affidavit, the first respondent has
stated categorically in the affidavit that the entire statements in
paragraphs 1 to 11 of the complaint are facts which are within his
knowledge. Had there been a case for the first respondent that any
part of the statement in the complaint has been made on his belief,
he should have disclosed the grounds of belief with sufficient
particularity to enable the Court to judge whether it would be safe to
act on the belief of the first respondent. In the absence of any case
for the first respondent that any part of the statements in the
complaint has been made on his belief, according to us, the affidavit
aforesaid is perfectly in order. In K.Chandrasekharan, unlike the
case on hand, the allegation of corruption attributed against the
public servant involved was made solely on the belief of the
complainant and the grounds of belief were not stated with sufficient
particularity as required under Rule 52 of the Civil Rules of Practice,
Kerala. The decision in K.Chandrasekharan, cannot, therefore,
have any application to the facts of the present case. The contention
of the petitioner that the affidavit filed by the first respondent in the
complaint was not in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 9 of
the Act is therefore rejected.
The contention that the complaint is not maintainable
18. As noted, the contention raised by the petitioner as
regards the maintainability of the complaint is that the complaint
being one in respect of the actions taken by the petitioner for
prescribing an additional qualification for the post of General
Manager of the Corporation and for directing appointment of the fifth
respondent as General Manager of the Corporation, the Lok Ayukta is
precluded from conducting any investigation into such a complaint
under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of
Section 8 of the Act reads thus:
"8. Matters not subject to investigation.--(1) Except
as hereinafter provided, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok
Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act,
in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect
of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified
in the Second Schedule. "
No doubt, action taken for prescribing qualification for a post and
action taken for effecting appointment to a post would certainly fall
within the scope of Clause (d) of the Second Schedule to the Act.
But, as explicit from sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, the bar
under that provision would apply only in the case of a complaint
involving any grievance in respect of any action relating to any
matter specified in the Second Schedule. Section 2(h) of the Act
defines 'grievance' to mean a claim by a person that he sustained
injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration.
Section 2(h) reads thus:
"(h) "grievance" means a claim by a person that he
sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence
of maladministration;"
An action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of
administrative functions in any case where (i) such action or the
administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is
unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or (ii)
there has been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such
action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such
action involves undue delay would amount to maladministration in
terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. Section 2(k) of the Act reads thus:
"(k) "maladministration" means action taken or purporting
to have been taken in the exercise of administrative
functions in any case where, -
(i) such action or the administrative procedure or
practice adopted in such action is unreasonable,
unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or
(ii) there has been wilful negligence or undue delay
in taking such action or the administrative
procedure or practice adopted in such action
involves undue delay;"
Section 2(b) of the Act which defines 'allegation in relation to a
public servant' reads thus:
(b) "allegation", in relation to a public servant, means any
affirmation that such public servant,-
(i) has abused his position as such public servant to
obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other
person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any
other person;
(ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as
such public servant by personal interest or improper or
corrupt motives; or
(iii) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack
of integrity in his capacity as such public servant;"
The distinction between 'grievance' and 'allegation' falling within the
scope of the Act is that the grievance should be contained in a claim
by a person that he has sustained an injustice or undue hardship
due to the maladministration, whereas the allegation in relation to
the public servant can be raised by any person, who may not have
any grievance to be redressed, qua the maladministration
concerned. It is so held by this Court in Ramachandran Nair M.K.
(Dr.) and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2009 (3) KHC
919. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:
"Crucial distinction which separates a 'grievance' from an
allegation as the two terms have been defined in the Lok
Ayukta Act have to be kept in mind. An 'allegation' is
defined in S.2(b) of the Act. A 'grievance', on the other
hand, is separately defined in S.2(h) of the Act. What
distinguishes a 'grievance' from an 'allegation' is that the
former should be contained in a claim by a person, that he
has sustained an injustice or undue hardship due to the
mal administration. The latter viz., 'allegation' in relation to
a public servant can be raised by any person, who may not
have any 'grievance' to be redressed, qua the mal
administration concerned. But the complainant, who raises
an 'allegation', irrespective of whether he has suffered a
personal injury from such mal administration would
nevertheless be entitled to affirm that the public servant
has indulged in favouritism and nepotism and lack of
integrity. In such circumstances, he would be entitled to file
a complaint before the Lok Ayukta. In filing such a
complaint, he does not seek the redressal of any
'grievance' as such, but only makes an 'allegation' against
the public servant, as the term is defined under the Act. He
does not seek any relief for himself. He is only interested in
bringing to light acts of mal administration and he acts in
general public interest."
As noted, the first respondent has neither any claim to the post of
General Manager of the Corporation nor a case that he sustained
injustice or undue hardship due to the maladministration. He does
not also seek redressal of any grievance in the proceedings before
the Lok Ayukta. Instead, in the complaint, he only made an
allegation against the public servant in terms of the Act in general in
public interest. Such a complaint cannot be regarded as one
involving grievance in respect of any action relating to any matter
specified in the Second Schedule. In other words, the bar under
Section 8(1) of the Act does not apply to such a case. It is seen that
the Lok Ayukta has dealt with and rejected the contention raised by
the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the complaint in the
aforesaid lines and the view taken by the Lok Ayukta in this regard is
perfectly in order. N.R.Anil Kumar is not a case relating to a
complaint involving allegation. Instead, it was a case relating to a
complaint involving grievance. The contention raised by the
petitioner as regards the maintainability of the complaint is also
therefore rejected.
The contention that Section 9(3) of the Act has not been complied
with
19. The contention raised by the petitioner in this
regard is that there has to be a preliminary enquiry into every
complaint and after the preliminary enquiry, if the Lok Ayukta
proposes to conduct any investigation into the same, in terms of
sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, it shall forward a copy of the
complaint to the public servant and also to the competent authority
of the public servant concerned and shall afford to the public servant
thereafter, an opportunity to offer his comments on the complaint in
the matter of conducting the investigation into the complaint and
the impugned report has been submitted without complying with the
said provision. The materials on record indicate that on 08.02.2019,
after hearing the counsel for the first respondent and the learned
Special Attorney for the Government, the Lok Ayukta decided to
conduct a preliminary enquiry in the complaint and directed the
Government to produce the relevant files. Similarly, the materials
indicate that later on 05.02.2020, it was felt that the respondents in
the complaint shall also be given an opportunity of hearing in the
preliminary enquiry and consequently, the Lok Ayukta has issued
notice before admission to the respondents in the complaint
including the petitioner and pursuant to the said notice, the
petitioner entered appearance in the proceedings and filed a written
statement offering his comments on the complaint. The fact that Lok
Ayukta has forwarded a copy of the complaint to the public servant
even before the complaint is admitted to file is not disputed by the
petitioner. Similarly, the fact that the Lok Ayukta has afforded the
petitioner an opportunity to offer his comments on the complaint is
also not disputed by the petitioner. Insofar as the requirements in
sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act have been complied with by
the Lok Ayukta even before the admission of the complaint and in
the absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner for not
repeating the same process after the complaint is admitted,
according to us, the omission on the part of the Lok Ayukta in not
complying with the provisions contained in sub-section(3) of Section
9 of the Act after the admission of the complaint is not a ground to
impugn the report in this proceedings, for every error committed in
the decision making process will not have the effect of vitiating the
decision and for the decision to be vitiated, it shall be demonstrated
that the error in the making of the decision has affected the
decision. In the case on hand, the petitioner has no case that the
decision of the Lok Ayukta is affected in any manner on account of
the omission on the part of the Lok Ayukta in forwarding a copy of
the complaint to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity to
offer his comments on the complaint again after the admission of
the complaint. The contention aforesaid is also therefore rejected.
The contention that there was no investigation into the complaint
20. The main contention raised by the petitioner
placing reliance on the opening words in sub-section (3) of Section
12 of the Act and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act is that a
report under sub-section (3) of Section 12 containing a declaration
under sub-section (1) of Section 14 could be submitted only after an
investigation into the complaint and in the case on hand, there was
no investigation at all into the complaint. The petitioner would also
argue that going by the scheme of the Act, the investigation on
complaints contemplated and provided under the Act is a process of
letting the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective
cases and also by gathering materials through the mechanism
provided for under Section 16(3) of the Act and if the parties are not
given an opportunity to let in evidence and if materials are not
collected through the mechanism provided for under Section 16(3)
of the Act, it cannot be said that there was an investigation at all
into the complaint. Section 11 of the Act provides that subject to the
provisions of the said section, for the purpose of any investigation
including the preliminary inquiry, if any, before such investigation
under the Act, the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta may require any
public servant or any other person who, in his opinion, is able to
furnish information or produce documents relevant to the
investigation to furnish any such information or produce any such
document. The provision aforesaid is only a provision conferring
power on the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta to require any public
servant or any other person who, in its opinion, is able to furnish
information or produce any document relevant for the investigation
in the case either at the stage of preliminary enquiry or at the stage
of investigation in a proceedings before it. The said provision cannot
be interpreted to hold that the Lok Ayukta is bound to afford to
public servant an opportunity to let in evidence once the complaint
is admitted, irrespective of the fact as to whether or not the public
servant seeks to adduce evidence in the matter. Sub-section(3) of
Section 16 of the Act reads thus:
"16. Staff of Lok Ayukta, etc.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1),
the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, for the purpose
of conducting investigations under this Act, utilise the
services of-
(a) any officer or investigating agency of the State
Government; or
(b) any officer or investigating agency of the Central
Government, with the prior concurrence of that
Government; or
(c) any other agency."
The mechanism provided under sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the
Act is also only a mechanism that enables the Lok Ayukta to collect
materials in a given case, if it finds it necessary to do so. The said
provision also cannot be interpreted to hold that the Lok Ayukta is
bound to collect materials once the complaint is admitted, making
use of the mechanism provided under that provision, irrespective of
the fact as to whether or not the Lok Ayukta needs any additional
materials. Coming to the case on hand, as noted, even before the
complaint was admitted to file, a copy of the complaint was
forwarded to the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to offer
his comments on the same. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner
entered appearance in the proceedings and filed a detailed written
statement. Having regard to the allegation in the complaint and the
contentions raised by the petitioner, the Lok Ayukta called for the
relevant files from the Government and the Government has made
available the files called for. The materials indicate that thereupon,
the Lok Ayukta afforded the parties to the proceedings including the
petitioner an opportunity to make oral submissions and the parties
including the petitioner have made oral submissions in the matter.
The petitioner has no case in the long writ petition running to 42
pages that he wanted to adduce evidence in the matter and that the
Lok Ayukta did not permit him to adduce evidence in the matter. The
materials also indicate that on the facts of the present case, the Lok
Ayukta did not find it necessary to require the petitioner to adduce
evidence or to collect additional materials through the mechanism
provided under Section 16(3) of the Act. In a case of this nature,
according to us, the argument that the Lok Ayukta should have
afforded the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence and
should have collected additional materials making use of the
mechanism provided under Section 16(3) of the Act is misconceived.
21. Section 12 of the Act deals with the reports of the
Lok Ayukta. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 reads thus:
"12. Reports of Lok Ayukta etc.
(3) If, after investigation of any action in respect of
which a complaint involving an allegation has been made, the
Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such
allegation is substantiated, either wholly or partly, he shall,
by report in writing, communicate his findings and
recommendations along with the relevant documents,
materials and other evidence to the competent authority and
also intimate the complainant about its having made the
report."
Section 14 of the Act deals with the power of the Lok Ayukta to direct
the public servants involved in the complaints to vacate office. Sub-
section(1) of Section 14 reads thus:
"14. Public Servant to vacate office if directed by Lok
Ayukta etc.-
(1) Where, after investigation into a complaint, the Lok Ayukta or
an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that the complaint involving an
allegation against the public servant is substantiated and that the
public servant concerned should not continue to hold the post
held by him, the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case
may be, shall make a declaration to that effect in his report under
sub-section (3) of section 12. Where the competent authority is
the Governor, the Government of Kerala or the Chief Minister, he
or it shall accept the declaration. In other cases, the competent
authority concerned shall send a copy of such report to the
Government, which shall accept the declaration."
The petitioner is right in contending that a report under sub-section
(3) of Section 12 of the Act containing a declaration under sub-
section (1) of Section 14 of the Act could be submitted only after an
investigation into the complaint involving an allegation. Sub-section
(4) of Section 9 of the Act provides that the procedure for conducting
investigation on a complaint shall be as the Lok Ayukta or the Upa
Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, considers appropriate in the
circumstances of the case. In other words, as rightly contended by
the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, the procedure
for conducting the investigation in a given case is a matter for the
Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, to decide having
regard to the circumstances of the case. Having regard to the
scheme of the statute, according to us, the investigation
contemplated under the Act is only a formal inquiry to discover the
truth of the allegation and it is on account of this reason that the Act
has given absolute discretion to the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta,
as the case may be, to decide the procedure for conducting the
investigation. Coming to the case on hand, as noted, the Lok Ayukta
has forwarded the copies of the complaint to all the respondents
even before the complaint was admitted to file, permitting them to
file written statements offering their comments in the matter and
availing the said opportunity, the petitioner as also the State
Government filed detailed written statements. The State
Government filed an additional statement also. In the meanwhile,
the Lok Ayukta also called for the files of the Government relating to
the case. It is seen that it is having regard to the said materials that
the Lok Ayukta has decided on 26.03.2021 to proceed with the
complaint and chose to hear the matter finally. The materials
indicate that there was no request from any parties on 26.03.2021
for filing any further statement or for adducing evidence and the
parties have addressed final arguments accordingly on 26.03.2021
and 30.03.2021. The materials indicate that it is based on the facts
disclosed in the written statements filed by the State Government as
also the petitioner and based on the facts disclosed in the files
produced by the Government, that the factual conclusions in the
report under Section 12(3) of the Act have been arrived at. The
procedure adopted by the Lok Ayukta, according to us, does not
contravene any of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the
contention that there was no investigation into the complaint by the
Lok Ayukta is liable to be rejected and we do so.
The contention that the factual findings arrived at by the Lok Ayukta
are perverse
22. The petitioner would contend that merely for the
reason that the fifth respondent possessed only the additional
alternative qualification ordered to be incorporated by the petitioner
for appointment to the post, it cannot be inferred that the action
taken by the petitioner almost two years before the appointment
was vitiated by favouritism or nepotism. Similarly, he would contend
that the appointment of the fifth respondent as General Manager of
the Corporation on deputation basis was at the instance of the
Corporation and merely for the reason that the Government
accepted the proposal made by the Corporation, it cannot be said
that the action taken by the petitioner in this regard is actuated by
personal interest. The chronology of events culled out by the Lok
Ayukta from the pleadings of the parties as also the files have been
stated by the Lok Ayukta in paragraph 46 of the report. Paragraph 46
of the report reads thus:
46. For a proper appreciation of the allegations in the
complaint, it is necessary to take note of the following
chronology of events:
24.8.2011:KSMFDC (for short the Corporation) was
constituted as a Private Limited Company
registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956
where the Government of Kerala held major
share capital.
6.8.2012: Government of Kerala approved the
Memorandum of Association and Articles of
Association of the Corporation.
29.6.2013:Government issued G.0. (MS) No.194/2013/GAD
dated 29.6.2013 (Ext.P1) according sanction for
creation of the post of General Manager and
prescribing the educational qualification for the
post, after obtaining the approval of the State
Cabinet.
29.1.2014:After considering the request of the Managing
Director of the Corporation, Government issued
G.O. (Rt)No.857/2014/GAD dated 29.1.2014
(Ext.P-3) according sanction for appointing
Sri.B.Sherafudeen as General Manager of the
Corporation on deputation basis.
5.5.2015:Based on the request of the Managing Director,
Government issued G.O. (Rt) No.3338/2015/GAD
dated 5.5.2015(Ext.P-4) according sanction for
appointing Sri.Faisal Muneer as General
Manager on deputation basis.
25.5.2016:Second Respondent Dr.K.T.Jaleel took charge as
Minister for Higher Education and Minority
Welfare, Government of Kerala.
28.7.2016:Second Respondent Minister sent a Note
(Ext.P7) to the Secretary, GAD (MW) Department
directing to issue an order changing the
educational qualifications for the post of General
Manager by adding B.Tech. with PGDBA also as a
qualification.
18.8.2016:Government issued G.0.(Rt) No.5369/2016/GAD
dated 18.8.2016 (Ext.P6) changing the
educational qualifications for the post of General
Manager to add B.Tech with PGDBA also as one
of the qualifications.
It is to be noted that the 5th respondent
Sri.K.T.Adeeb who is admittedly the second
cousin of the 2nd respondent- Minister
possessed the qualification 'B.Tech. with
PGDBA'. Without the above mentioned change,
the 5th respondent would not have been
qualified for the post. The modified qualification
was tailor made for him.
It is also to be noted that the idea of changing
the educational qualifications originated from
the 2nd respondent- Minister and that there was
no such proposal from the Corporation. The
matter was not placed before the Cabinet and
even the suggestion to consult Finance
Department was rejected.
The direction of the 2nd respondent- Minister
was carried out by issuing the Govt. Order dated
18.8.2016 (Ext.P-6).
25.8.2016:Within a week, the Corporation issued
notification dated 25.8.2016 (Ext.P-5) inviting
applications for various posts including that of
General Manager.
4.9.2016: In response to the said Notification, the 5th
respondent submitted his application for the
post of General Manager.
10.10.2016:The 5th respondent received call letter to
appear for the interview to be held on
26.10.2016.
26.10.2016: The 5th respondent did not turn up for the
interview "due to some unavoidable reasons".
Those who turned up were found to be not
qualified. No Selection or appointment was
made for the post of General Manager.
22.9.2017: Director Board of the Corporation passed a
resolution to the effect that the existing rank
lists of various posts shall be treated as expired
after 30.9.2017 and that all proceedings on the
interview of Deputy Manager and General
Manager shall be treated as expired.
1.9.2018: Without any further notification inviting
applications, the 5th respondent on his own
submitted an application to the Managing
Director requesting for appointment as General
Manager.
11.9.2018:Along with his letter dated 11.9.2018 Edt.R2(8)
the Managing Director forwarded the
application to the Govt. for favour of perusal
and action. In the letter of the Managing
Director there was no reference to the 5th
respondent's application submitted in 2016 or
his failure to turn up for the interview or the
expiry of the earlier proceedings on 30.9.2017.
There was also no indication that the
application submitted on 1.9.2018 was placed
before the Director Board or that it was
recommended by the Director Board which is
the appointing authority.
28.9.2018: While considering Ext.R2(8) letter of the
Managing Director the Additional Secretary
noted in the file that as per the existing
conditions Sri. K.T.Adeeb, being a Private Bank
Employee, cannot be posted as General
Manager and submitted the file to the
Secretary for circulation to the Minister.
28.9.2018: The 2nd Respondent Minister overruled the
objection that an officer from a Private Bank
cannot be appointed and passed an order
directing to appoint the 5th respondent as
General Manager on deputation basis
(Ext.P11).
8.10.2018: Government issued G.O.(Rt) No.6581/2018/
GAD dated 8.10.2018 (Ext. P-13) appointing
the 5th respondent as General Manager on
deputation.
It has to be noted that:
(i) In the case of his predecessors
Sri.B.Sherafudeen and Sri. Faisal Muneer,
appointment was made by the Director Board
which is the appointing authority.
But in the case of the 5th respondent, Govt.
itself issued the appointment order.
(ii) The statement in Ext.P-13 Government
Order that the Managing Director of the
Corporation had in his letter dated 11.9.2018
recommended to appoint the 5th respondent
as General Manager of the Corporation is
wrong and misleading. In his letter dated
11.9.2018 (Ext.R2(8) there is no such
recommendation. He only stated as follows:
"The applicant is learned to be a fit candidate
for the post of General Manager on
Deputation as he has (sic) having the
required qualification i.e.,B.Tech with PGDBA
and 10 years experience in Banking service.
The application and Government Order are
enclosed with for favour of perusal. Kind
action may be initiated."
(iii) Significantly there was no statement
anywhere that the Director Board, being the
Appointing Authority, had considered or
recommended the application or that
Ext.R2(8) letter of the Managing Director was
based on any decision of the Director Board.
(iv) It is clear from Ext.P-13 Government
Order that 'No Objection' from the parent
organization was given only on 26.9.2018
and that the Managing Director forwarded
the application to Government hurriedly on
11.9.2018 even before producing the "No
Objection' from the parent organization i.e.,
the South Indian Bank.
11.10.2018: The 5th respondent took charge as General
Manager of the Corporation.
11.11.2018: The 5th respondent submitted an application
(Ext.R5(6) seeking permission to return to his
parent organisation.
Obviously it was in the context of the
controversy surrounding his appointment as
General Manager in the Corporation.
13.11.2018:Director Board recommended the application of
the 5th respondent.
16.11.2018:Government issued G.O. (Rt) No.7481/2018/
GAD dated 16.11.2018 terminating the
deputation of the 5th respondent and granting
him-permission to return to his parent
organisation.
5.2.2019: This complaint as per Sec.9(2) of the Kerala Lok
Ayukta Act, 1999 was presented in the Registry
on 5.2.2019.
As evident from the extracted paragraph, the Lok Ayukta found from
the files that there was no proposal from the Corporation to modify
the qualification for the post of General Manager and the idea of
modifying the qualification originated from the petitioner himself.
Similarly, the Lok Ayukta found from the files that the fifth
respondent who applied for selection to the post of General Manager
and who did not turn up for the interview pursuant to the invitation
made by the Corporation, submitted an application later before the
Managing Director of the Corporation, seeking orders appointing him
as General Manager on deputation basis and the Managing Director
has forwarded the said request to the Government without placing
the request before the Board of the Corporation and the petitioner
has issued orders directing the appointment of the fifth respondent
on the said reference made by the Managing Director. The petitioner
does not dispute the facts narrated by the Lok Ayukta in paragraph
46 of the report. The final opinion has been formed by the Lok
Ayukta based on the facts narrated in paragraph 46 of the report.
As indicated above, this being a proceedings for judicial review, the
court could examine an error of fact touching the merit of decision
only if it has a direct nexus to the decision making process. Be that
as it may, the formation of an opinion on the facts is a subjective
matter and if an opinion is formed based on the relevant materials,
so long as the authority was acting within the scope of its powers,
however meagre the materials be, the courts should not and will not
interfere with the opinion formed in exercise of judicial review. The
aforesaid proposition has been reiterated by the Apex Court in
Narayan Govind Gavate and Others v. State of Maharashtra
and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 133. The relevant portion of the said
judgment reads thus:
It is true that, in such cases, the formation of an opinion is
a subjective matter, as held by this Court repeatedly with
regard to situations in which administrative authorities
have to form certain opinions before taking actions they
are empowered to take. They are expected to know better
the difference between a right or wrong opinion than
courts could ordinarily on such matters. Nevertheless, that
opinion has to be based upon some relevant materials in
order to pass the test which courts do impose. That test
basically is: Was the authority concerned acting within the
scope of its powers or in the sphere where its opinion and
discretion must be permitted to have full play? Once the
court comes to the conclusion that the authority
concerned was acting within the scope of its powers and
had some material, however meagre, on which it could
reasonably base its opinion, the courts should not and will
not interfere. There might, however, be cases in which the
power is exercised in such an obviously arbitrary or
perverse fashion, without regard to the actual and
undeniable facts, or, in other words, so unreasonably as to
leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of a court that
there has been an excess of power. There may also be
cases where the mind of the authority concerned has not
been applied at all, due to misunderstanding of the law or
some other reason, to what was legally imperative for it to
consider.
We have already found that the Lok Ayukta was acting within the
scope of its powers while arriving at its conclusion. In the
circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made
out any ground for interference in the final opinion formulated by the
Lok Ayukta in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without any
merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE.
YKB
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.
57/19 DATED 26-1-2019 ALONG WITH
EXHIBITS FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5-2-
2020 IN COMPLAINT NO. 57/2019-B ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED
ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
3-7-2019 EXCLUDING THE EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14-08-2019
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 9-3-2020 EXCLUDING THE EXHIBITS.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED
ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 9-4-
2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN
COMPLAINT NO. 57/2019
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
FILE NOTE DATED 4-08-2016 OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN
W.P(C) NO 10262/2019 DATED 2-4-2019
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(C) NO. 10262/2019 DATED 11-07-2019
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
GOVERNOR OF KERALA DATED 8-08-2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
