Kerala High Court
Madalan Subair vs Director on 28 January, 2025
1
W.P.(C) No.1313 of 2025
2025:KER:6504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1313 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MADALAN SUBAIR
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA, AGED 56 YEARS, MUKKOLA, CHIRAVVAKK,
THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT YEMMA
MADU, KUDAGU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN - 571214
BY ADV T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU VIKAS
BHAVAN, LAW COLLEGE RD, OPPOSITE KSRTC DEPOT, P.O,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU THAVAKKARA,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SMT REKHA S - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH - SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIG)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C) No.1313 of 2025
2025:KER:6504
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
-------------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No.1313 of 2025
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has lodged Ext.P2 complaint before the 2nd
respondent alleging that accused Nos.1 to 6 arraigned therein
hatched a conspiracy and committed offences including one
punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The complaint was lodged on 29.08.2024. The grievance
of the petitioner is that no action on the said complaint has been
taken by the 2nd respondent yet. Hence, he filed this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2
complaint and take appropriate action against the accused.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
3. Ext.P2 complaint contained the following allegation:
The 1st accused executed settlement deed No.694/1/2016
of SRO, Peringome in favour of the 2nd accused, who is his
daughter. The 1st accused falsely, stated in the settlement deed
2025:KER:6504
that he obtained the property by virtue of patta No.359/1997
issued from the Land Tribunal, Payyannur. In fact that patta was
issued in the name of one Sebastian. The said settlement was
thus a product of forgery committed in consequence of a
conspiracy hatched between the accused, including the 6th
accused, who was the Sub Registrar, Peringome during the
relevant time. Ext.P2 was lodged with the above allegations and
also that the 6th accused committed misconduct being a public
servant.
4. Along with memo dated 23.01.2025, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor placed on record a report of the 2 nd
respondent. Paragraph Nos.3 to 5 in the report state as follows:
3. The Petitioner further alleged that Ummar's title deed is
fraudulent, and it was forged and registered at the
Peringome Sub-Registrar's office through undue influence
over the Sub-Registrar and with the involvement of
concerned government officials, who abused their official
positions to facilitate the creation of these fake documents.
The Petitioner further alleged that, at the time of registering
the gift deed, the respondent parties were already aware
that, as stated in the deed, there was neither a title deed
nor an application for obtaining a title deed pending before
the Payannur Land Tribunal.
4. Upon receiving the Petitioner's complaint, as per
2025:KER:6504
procedure, this office forwarded it on 03.09.2024 to the
Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Thiruvananthapuram, for further necessary action.
5. The Director. Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Thiruvananthapuram, perused the complaint of the
Petitioner and forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary,
Vigilance Department, Government Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram, for further action. Subsequently, the
Government has forwarded the complaint to both the
Revenue and Taxes departments, as per file no. A2-
400/2024/Vig dated 28.10.2024, for appropriate further
action.
5. Section 17A of the PC Act insists on previous approval
of the competent authority before conducting any enquiry,
inquiry or investigation into any offence under the
Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant. In view
of such a pre-requirement for conducting even an enquiry, the
2nd respondent forward the complaint to the Director, Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, and he in turn
submitted the same to the Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance
Department. The complaint is now pending before the Revenue
and Taxes Department with file No.A2-400/2024/Vig dated
28.10.2024. When the matter is pending before the appropriate
2025:KER:6504
authority for taking a decision as contemplated in Section 17A of
the PC Act, no further direction in the matter is called for except
to remind the competent authority about the time stipulation in
the proviso to section 17A of the PC Act.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by reminding
the authority competent under Section 17A of the PC Act to take
a decision in file No.A2-400/2024/Vig dated 28.10.2024 within
the time stipulated in the last proviso to Section 17A of the PC
Act.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
SMF
2025:KER:6504
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1313/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT -P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEED DATED DECEMBER 16,
2019 EXECUTED BY SUB JUDGE PAYYANUR AT SRO
PERINGOME
EXHIBIT -P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
28.08.2024 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT -P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBER
P/154/2024/KNR DATED AUGUST 29, 2024 FROM
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
