Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. We have heard the Sri.Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.Anil Thomas and the learned State Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondents.

14. Sri.Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel, opens his submissions by asserting that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner not in his capacity as a Minister of the State of Kerala but as an individual citizen. He says that nowhere in the cause title of the petition has the petitioner represented himself to be a Minister, though he concedes that in the first line of his writ petition the petitioner has described himself to be one. According to Sri.Vivek Tankha, when a person holding the position of a Minister finds that there are reports or action taken against him personally by the Government functionalities, relating to his activities and conduct not as a Minister, he would be entitled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging such action or such reports as if he is a private citizen even if such action has been ordered by another Minister in the Cabinet.

28. The District Collector has also shown in Ext.P2(a) report that certain violations of the Act by the company have been noticed after 2014. Sri.Vivek Tankha, the learned senior counsel asserts that the District Collector in Ext.P2(a) could not have entered into this inquiry because her predecessor in office had already made a factual report on 12.11.2014, namely, Ext.P5 report, with respect to the same properties but did not find that the petitioner was the owner of any such properties. According to him, Ext.P2(a) report, which indicates that the petitioner is the owner of certain extents of property, is thus completely misconceived and made without authority. These  submissions of Sri.Vivek Tankha underpinned on Ext.P5 report may not obtain forensic support because what is stated in Ext.P2(a) is that there are violations by the company even subsequent to the year 2014, that is, even after Ext.P5 report. We are not saying that what is stated in Ext.P2(a) is correct, but certainly we cannot hold that the District Collector is not competent to investigate into further violations of the law merely because Ext.P5 had earlier given a clean report in favour of the company.

32. The petitioner appears to be concerned more about the media and his political rivals than any legal prejudice that may be caused to him since we find, as we have already said above, that Ext.P2(a) does not really show that any action against him personally is proposed except that the company is sought to be investigated and proceeded against.

33. The findings in Ext.P2(a) report, as we have seen above, is that some of the properties mentioned therein, is allegedly found to be possessed or found to be in the name of the petitioner, though no action is proposed against him personally in the said report. The apprehensions voiced before us by Sri.Tankha, learned Senior Counsel is that since the petitioner has been shown to be the owner of certain properties in Ext.P2(a), he apprehends that action may be taken under section 13 of the Act, against him also in future by the District Collector. Sri.Tankha continues to assert vehemently that the recording of the name of the petitioner in Ext.P2(a) at pages 5 and 6 thereof are, in fact, factually incorrect since he does not own any property mentioned in the said report. He, therefore, says that he is left without any remedy to cause the correction of Ext.P2(a) except by filing this writ petition.

34. We see that the petitioner has approached this Court making certain specific prayers. The primary among the prayers that have  been sought for is to quash Ext.P2(a) report and to stop all further proceedings initiated pursuant to it. One fails to understand, going by the submissions of Sri.Tankha, why the petitioner should have sought for this prayer because concededly Ext.P2(a) does not propose any action under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner personally. The action proposed therein is only against the company by name Water World Tourism Company Private Limited and I am unable to see any reason why the petitioner should feel aggrieved or prejudiced by the way Ext.P2(a) is recorded except that his name has been mentioned therein. This is pertinent because the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petitioner is also that he shall not be proceeded in his personal capacity in Ext.P2 report, except in accordance with Section 24 of the Act meaning thereby to say that only the aforementioned Company be prosecuted. This report, we must notice is only a fact finding report, which will now have to progress into an action under Section 13 of the Act. Admittedly, as even Sri.Tankha also concedes, no action has been initiated by the Government pursuant to Ext.P2(a) report until now. In such view also I am not sure why a writ petition should have been filed on a hypothetical apprehension that action may be taken against the petitioner merely because his name appears in Ext.P2(a) in one or two places. I, therefore, cannot find the petitioner to have invoked the jurisdiction of  this court with a matured cause of action and that is also an additional reason for us to deny jurisdiction at this stage of the proceedings.