T.Jose Mathew vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 31932 Ker

Kerala High Court

T.Jose Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2024

                                                   2024:KER:83018
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                      WP(C) NO. 19981 OF 2020

PETITIONER:
           T.JOSE MATHEW
           AGED 60 YEARS
           S/O. MATHEW, ( RTD. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,)
           THUDIYAMPLAKKAL, IDAPADI P.O., PALA,KOTTAYAM,
           PIN-686 578

          BY ADVS.
          S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
          SRI.S.GOKUL BABU
          SRI.RAJU GEORGE (KARUVATTA)
          SMT.AMALA.J.RAJ
          SHRI.JEREES J.



RESPONDENTS:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM
     2     LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
           REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, MUSEUM
           JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
 ADDL.R3. R.SURESH KUMAR,
           S/O.K.R.PANICKAR, PANTHAPALLY VEEDU, IYARKULANGARA,
           VAIKOM, PIN - 686 141.

          (ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
          08.01.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN WP(C)19981/2020.)
          BY ADV.REKHA S. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
             ADV.A.RAJESH - SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No. 19981 of 2020

                                ..2..
                                                               2024:KER:83018



                            J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 7th day of November, 2024

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4

Order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, which refused the

prosecution sanction against additional R3, a Village

Officer, in respect of the petitioner's complaint alleging

corruption against him.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) for the

respondents. Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,

Ext.P4 Sanction Order does not refer to any of the

documents produced by the petitioner, which would prima

facie indicate that the allegations of corruption against

additional R3 are true and correct. The Sanctioning

Authority has merely relied upon the report of the District

Collector and also a report made by the Vigilance wing of

the Revenue Department. According to the learned Counsel,

..3..

2024:KER:83018

there is no application of mind, whatsoever, by the

Sanctioning Authority. Ext.P4 is therefore liable to be set

aside.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would point out that

Ext.P4 Order has been issued based on available materials

and that the documents now produced along with this Writ

Petition, were not produced before the Sanctioning

Authority. At any rate, there exists nothing, which would

indicate that the present documents were made available to

the Sanctioning Authority at the time of passing Ext.P4

Order. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor,

no interference whatsoever is warranted, inasmuch as, the

documents produced now also would not make out any case for

granting sanction.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

respective parties, this Court finds no reason to interfere

with the impugned Ext.P4 Order. As rightly pointed out by

the learned Special Public Prosecutor, there is no

..4..

2024:KER:83018

indication, whatsoever, in Ext.P4 Order showing that the

present materials, produced in this Writ Petition, were

made available before the Sanctioning Authority at the

relevant time. Ext.P3 is the application preferred by the

petitioner before the Sanctioning Authority, dated

18.02.2020. It only refers to the fact that Ext.P2 order

has been passed by the Special Court, Kottayam (that too,

wrongly describing it as a prosecution sanction), and

therefore, seeking sanction to be issued by the Sanctioning

Authority, preferably within two days. There is nothing in

Ext.P3 to show that any document was submitted along with

Ext.P3 for consideration by the Sanctioning Authority. Nor

would Ext.P2 Order of the Special Court refer to any such

document. Ext.P2 merely takes note of the fact that

allegation of corruption under Section 13 of the Prevention

of Corruption Act is alleged against a Government servant

and hence, required the complainant to obtain sanction

under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Admittedly, Ext.P4 Order also does not contain any

reference to any of the documents now relied upon by the

..5..

2024:KER:83018

petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court cannot arrive

at a conclusion that the Sanctioning Authority failed to

consider the documents claimed to have been produced by the

defacto complainant. Therefore, the challenge against

Ext.P4 on that count should necessarily fail.

6. Even assuming the documents which are now produced are

reckoned, this Court is of the opinion that the same would

not make any qualitative change in the decision reflected

in Ext.P4. This Court notice that Ext.P1 is the complaint

preferred by the petitioner before the Special Court,

wherein there is a vague allegation to the effect that

accused nos.3 to 5, influenced accused nos.1 and 2, and

pursuant to a conspiracy by and between them, a plan was

devised to create a false document by abusing their

official power and position. In paragraph no.4 of Ext.P1,

the allegation is that the 3rd respondent herein had created

a false sketch showing the width of the road as six meters,

whereas the actual width of the road is only three meters.

However, there is no material, whatsoever, even now,

..6..

2024:KER:83018

indicating that the width of the road has been shown as six

meters in any of the documents alleged to have been created

by the 1st respondent. According to the learned counsel, a

direction was issued vide Annexure-A5 in the form of

guidelines for preparation of asset register, pursuant to

which Annexure-A6 the asset register was prepared. Inasmuch

as Annexure-A5 is dated 02.12.2005, Annexure-A6 can only be

after the date, is the contention urged. In respect of that

contention also, this Court is not in a position to

endorse. Annexure-A5 is in the form of guidelines. It does

not indicate that an asset register is introduced for the

first time, to be maintained by the Panchayaths. Even

discounting that fact, what is shown in Annexure-A6, which

has been produced as Ext.P1(f), is a width to the extent of

3.5 meters. In the impugned Ext.P4 Order, there is a

reference to the report of the Vigilance team under the

Revenue Department stating that the authenticity of the

sketch produced by the defacto complainant as regards the

state of affairs existing then and at the present time,

after 14 years, cannot be examined. If that be so,

..7..

2024:KER:83018

Annexure-A6 in the private complaint, which is Ext.P1(f)

herein, does not lend any substantial support to the

petitioner's allegation of corruption against the 3 rd

respondent. This is all the more so, since the width of the

road shown in Ext.P1(a) sketch is 3.5 meters, except at the

beginning and a few other portions. If the width at those

portions are as indicated in Ext.P1(a) as per actual lie,

the third respondent cannot be faulted with for recording

the same. At any rate, Ext.P1(a) would not establish, even

prima facie, any sort of corruption against the 3rd

respondent.

7. Alleging corruption against a public servant is a

serious thing; and, one who choose to do so should shoulder

the responsibility to make out a case, by producing

adequate materials, for grant of sanction. It is the

bounden duty of the Sanctioning Authority to examine the

materials placed before it, to find out whether the public

servant was acting within the scope of his official duty.

The very purpose of a pre-requisite for sanction is to

..8..

2024:KER:83018

safeguard public servants, who are acting in good faith,

from being dragged into unnecessary prosecution. If the

Sanctioning Authority had applied its mind, based on the

materials before such authority and arrived at a

satisfaction, and if the order refusing sanction does not

exhibit any patent illegality, warranting interference

under Article 226, the Courts should be slow to interfere

with such decisions.

The upshot of the above discussion is that, this Writ

Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE TR

..9..

2024:KER:83018

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19981/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CRL.M.P.NO.34/2020 FILED BEFORE HONOURABLE ENQUIRY COMMISSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE) KOTTAYAM

EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLARA BEARING THE SIGNATURE DATED 28.11.2015

EXHIBIT P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 05.04.2019 OF PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER , KALLARA

EXHIBIT P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.745/1990 OF THE PETITIONER/COMPLAINT DATED 26.3.1990

EXHIBIT P1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.112/1998 PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM DATED 3.2.1999

EXHIBIT P1(e) ANNEXURE-5 IN EXT P1 IS THE G.O(MS) NO.363/2005/LSGD DATED 02.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVT.

DEPARTMENT

EXHIBIT P1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSET REGISTER SINGED BY THE 2ND ACCUSED

EXHIBIT P1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE FORGED ROAD REGISTER COLLECTED BY THE PETITIONER/COMPLAINT AS PER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 IN CRL.M.P.NO.342020 PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM

..10..

2024:KER:83018

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.D5- 7444/20 DATED 27.04.2020 REJECTING THE SANCTION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT