Kerala High Court
P.G.Joseph vs Bhanumathi Radhakrishnan on 13 January, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 23RD POUSHA, 1941
WA.No.25 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13340/2019(N) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/4th RESPONDENT:
P.G.JOSEPH
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.P.S.GEORGE, PADAPURACKAL HOUSE,
KATTAKKARA ROAD (EAST), KALOOR,
ERNAKULAM - 682 017.
BY ADVS.
SRI.HARI.S.NAIR
SRI.R.B.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 BHANUMATHI RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 82 YEARS
W/O.DR.T.RADHAKRISHNAN,
PUKALAKKAT SUSMITHA,
INDIRA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,
ERNAKULAM - 682 025
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
VACB UNIT, KATHRIKADAVU,
ERNAKULAM - 682 020
4 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
CENTRAL ZONE, PERUMBILLY BUILDINGS,
ERNAKULAM - 682 011
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND FOR R2 TO R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.25 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P.CHALY,J This appeal is filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.9.2019. Respondent No.1 is the writ petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 were respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. The following are the reliefs sought for by the writ petitioner in the writ petition:
i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P13 order
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to persue any inquiry or investigation based on Ext.P12 complaint.
iii) to declare that the dispute raised in Ext.P12 is purely civil in nature and that civil proceedings are already initiated by respective parties and respondents 2 & 3 have no role in this matter.
iv) to issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Apparently the writ petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P13 notice dated 27.4.2019, whereby the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam, as part of enquiry in reference No.VE08/2018/EKM, directed the petitioner to appear and produce WA.No.25 OF 2020 3 documents to prove the properties comprised in Sy.Nos.194/05, 195/03, 195/04 and 195/05 of Elamkulam Village are in the name of Smt.Banumathy Radhakrishnan and others and the copy of the execution order of the decree in O.S No.95/1951 and to inform a convenient date and place to the officer mentioned in the said order, on or before 10.5.2014.
3. However, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has filed a statement before the learned Single Judge that, no action under the Prevention of Corruption Act is possible on the complaint filed by the appellant i.e, the 4th respondent in the writ petition. It was further recorded that, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has also reported that further action initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of the complaint will be dropped and the other actions possible including disciplinary action will be recommended, if necessary.
4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau also submitted before the court that, it has taken a decision to drop further action against the writ petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has recommended disciplinary action against the erring Government Officials. It was recording the submissions made by the WA.No.25 OF 2020 4 learned Special Public Prosecutor and also the report of the VACB that, no criminal action or prosecution is possible against the petitioner on the complaint made by the 4th respondent, and that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13 notice will be dropped, the writ petition was disposed of.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the stand adopted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau is without verifying the records and it is clear from the records that, the writ petitioner will have to be proceeded with under the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, the stand adopted by the learned single Judge by disposing the writ petition recording the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and on the basis of the statement filed is not in accordance with law.
6. On the other hand learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, petitioner has not made out any case to prefer an appeal against the disposal of the writ petition recording the submission made by the Special Public Prosecutor that the VACB is not proceeding against the writ petitioner.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Hari.S.Nair, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
WA.No.25 OF 2020 5
8. On an appreciation of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that, learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition recording that, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau is not proceeding against the petitioner since it was found that no action is possible under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is quite clear and evident from the facts put forth by the writ petitioner that, the writ petitioner was challenging a notice issued to the writ petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and during the course of hearing, it was submitted that, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau is not intending to proceed further against the writ petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. Therefore, in view of the decision taken by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, there was nothing to be considered on merits in the writ petition. It was accordingly that the writ petition was disposed of recording the submission. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the appellant has a cause of action for preferring any appeal invoking the power under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act and we do not find anything to be interfered with in the judgment of the learned single Judge invoking the said power since the subject matter was not decided on merits. Needless to say, if the appellant is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to drop the proceedings against the writ WA.No.25 OF 2020 6 petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is for the appellant to work out the remedies in accordance with law.
Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge, there being no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE