Sri.Joy Kaitharath vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1331 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.26549 OF 2019(P)


PETITIONER/S:

                Sri.JOY KAITHARATH
                AGED 66 YEARS
                S/O. ANTONY, GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
                PROTECTION CENTRE, VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR - 680 699

                BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

      2         THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
                INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

      3         THE DIRECTOR,
                VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREQU, PMG, VIKAS
                BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

                ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED AS -PER THE ORDER DATED 05-
                02-2020 IN I.A 1/2020.




                SRI A RAJESH -SPL PP VACB, SRI B JAYASURYA -SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD             ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      2

W.P.(C) No.26549 of 2019




                               JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner had filed Ext.P1 complaint in the Court

of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance),

Muvattupuzha against one N.K. Manoj, the Managing Director

of the Kerala Handicrafts Development Corporation,

Thiruvananthapuram, alleging against him the offences

punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When the aforesaid

complaint came up for consideration before the Special Judge,

it was submitted before that court that the Vigilance and Anti-

Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam unit was conducting a

preliminary enquiry as V.E 1/2018 in the matter. Based on the

aforesaid submission made before the Special Judge, Ext.P1

complaint was closed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

petitioner subsequently came to know that another vigilance

enquiry was undertaken by the Thiruvananthapuram unit of

W.P.(C) No.26549 of 2019

the VACB as V.E -3/2016/SIU-II in the matter. Apprehending

that the aforesaid enquiry is farce so as to shield the accused,

the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application in the Special Court

praying that Ext.P1 complaint which was closed by the court

may be reopened and the VACB may be directed to register an

FIR in the matter and conduct investigation. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 application is pending

consideration before the Special Judge. However, taking note

of the fact that previous sanction of the Government for

prosecution of a public servant is required under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner made Ext.P3

representation to the Government seeking sanction to

prosecute Sri.N.K Manoj.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Government have not yet taken any decision on Ext.P3

representation made by him seeking sanction to prosecute the

accused. Learned Special Government Pleader (VACB) submits

that the VACB had completed the enquiry in V.E

No.3/2016/SIU-II and on such enquiry it has been found that

W.P.(C) No.26549 of 2019

there are no materials disclosing the commission of a

cognizable offence requiring the registration of FIR in the

matter and that the VACB has forwarded the enquiry report to

the Government for taking appropriate decision.

4. The prayer made in this writ petition is only to issue

a direction to the respondents to take a decision on Ext.P3

representation made by the petitioner. The fact that the VACB

has already conducted a preliminary enquiry in the matter and

submitted the report of enquiry to the Government does not

stand in the way of the Government taking a decision on

Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner.

5. The competent authority has to take a decision on

Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner. The fact that

Ext.P3 representation is dated 22.10.2018 and more than two

years have lapsed would show the laxity on the part of the

competent authority in taking a decision on Ext.P3. In such

circumstances, I find that a direction can be issued to the

Government to take a decision on Ext.P3 representation within

a period of two months from today.

W.P.(C) No.26549 of 2019

6. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of as

follows. The competent authority under the first respondent,

who is empowered to take a decision on Ext.P3, is directed to

consider the prayer made in Ext.P3 representation and to take

a decision thereon within a period of two months from today

and thereafter communicate such decision immediately to the

writ petitioner.

S/d

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

JUDGE

rpk

W.P.(C) No.26549 of 2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.1.2018 BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE) MUVATTUPUZHA

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FURTHER COMPLAINT DATED 23.3.2018 BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE) MUVATTUPUZHA

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT