Recently, the Kerala High Court examined a writ petition raising concerns over the delay in processing an enquiry report connected to alleged irregularities in appointments within a state-run agricultural promotion body. The Petitioner sought judicial intervention to ensure that the competent authority considers the report for deciding whether a prosecution sanction should be granted under anti-corruption law.
The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to the concerned officials of the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Keralam (VFPCK) to forward an enquiry report prepared by a committee of three Directors. The report related to the appointment of an HR Manager-in-Charge. The petitioner contended that the report was crucial for consideration by the competent authority while deciding a request for sanction to prosecute certain officials under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The request for sanction arose pursuant to earlier directions issued by a Vigilance Court, which required the petitioner to obtain prior sanction before proceeding further with criminal proceedings.
The Petitioner argued that withholding the enquiry report would frustrate the statutory process mandated under the Prevention of Corruption Act and render the earlier vigilance court directions ineffective. It was submitted that the report had significant evidentiary value and would aid the competent authority in forming an informed opinion on whether sanction for prosecution should be granted.
Opposing the plea, one of the private respondents contended that his appointment was lawful and already under challenge in separate proceedings. It was also argued that the petitioner was not directly aggrieved by the appointment and that criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint were misconceived.
The Court examined the scope of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, particularly the proviso mandating an opportunity of hearing to the concerned public servant when a sanction request is initiated by a private individual. The Court observed that while the competent authority must ensure procedural fairness by hearing the affected public servant, there was no legal impediment in forwarding the enquiry report for consideration. The High Court emphasized that withholding relevant material at the sanction stage would undermine the statutory scheme and due process.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the concerned authority to forward the enquiry report to the competent government authority without delay. The Court further ordered that while deciding the question of sanction, the authority must grant an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the concerned public servant, strictly in terms of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The competent authority was directed to take a reasoned decision within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Case Title: V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 39191 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Shinto Thomas, Adv. Ram Vinayak, Adv. Mohamed Aslam V. P., Adv. Sona Vijayan K. and Adv. Ayana L. Biju.
Counsel for the Respondent: Standing Counsel P. A. Aziz, Sr. Government Pleader Rekha S., Spl. Government Pleader Rajesh A., Adv. Elvin Peter P. J. (Sr.), Adv. K. R. Ganesh, Adv. Adarsh Babu C. S., Adv. Ahsana E. and Adv. Ashik J. Varghese.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
