IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 RP.No. 69 of 2010(K) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30548/2009 Dated 30/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. K.S.RATHEESH, MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALILTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.JAYAKUMAR, BUILDING INSPECTOR, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. LEELAMMA MAMMEN, REVENUE INSPECTOR, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.K.MAJEED, PARUTHIKKAL VEETTIL, WARD NO.12, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY. 3. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALILTY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KALAMASSERY. 4. MARTIN A.JERALD, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, 41/2064, KALABHAVAN ROAD, KOCHI 18. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. R1 BY ADV.SMT.CAROLIN SINDHU VAZ R2, R3 BY ADV.M.K.ABOOBACKER R4 BY ADV.S.SHANAVAS KHAN R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.69 OF 2010 IN W.P(C).30548 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 O R D E R 1.The writ petition from which this review petition arises was filed alleging that illegal construction is going on in relation to a particular structure in Kalamassery. On 28.10.2009, issuing notice before admission, the following order also was granted. "The materials on record show that the municipal authorities themselves stand to state the fact that ownership certificates and occupancy certificates were issued after allotting assessment numbers for a building which had not even grown beyond its skeletal stage. Mounting pressure of the local public ultimately led the municipality to withdraw the numbering, assessment, occupancy certificate, ownership certificates etc. Each public servant is paid out of the funds of the public. This may come from any source, called, the local fund account or any among the heads of account, but ultimately it is the exchequer that suffers when salaries are RP.69/10 2 disbursed. It is therefore abundantly necessary that officers, who do not discharge their duties and responsibilities, promptly and appropriately are shown the route to do their job or otherwise, to vacate in public interest. In cases of corruption, nepotism, favouritism etc., the erring have to be reached at and brought to face consequences that the law prescribes. In the case in hand, it is abundantly appropriate that the District Collector ensures that the entire files are called for and sent to the VACB who will look into the matter and have a report filed here through the learned Government Pleader. The Vigilance Wing of the Local Administration Department of Government will also look into the matter and place a separate report regarding its views. Respondents 1, 2 and 4, through the appropriate police authorities, shall ensure that if Ext.P4 is in force, there is no further construction activity in the site in question until further orders". 2.Following those directions, it appears that the District Collector and the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau acted RP.69/10 3 resulting in a report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kochi as also a quick verification report made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Central Range. Those materials were placed before this Court on 30.11.2009 and accordingly, the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued. The said judgment merely records what transpired following the earlier order and also the relevant statements in the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. 3.The review petitioners who are the three officers whose name occurred in the third sentence of the judgment sought to be reviewed, appears to be aggrieved by that sentence, which, according to them, is likely to be understood by the superior officials as a direction to keep them under suspension. Reasonable prudence is expected of superior officers. I am sure that no superior officer would read the third sentence of the judgment sought to be reviewed in any such manner as apprehended by the review petitioners. What is recorded RP.69/10 4 therein is merely a reiteration of the contents of the reports which were placed before the court and the statement that the three officers against whom departmental action has to be taken are Sri.K.Jayakumar, Sri.K.S.Rateesh and Smt.Leelamma Mamman is merely a statement regarding the view of the department as reflected in the report. It contains nothing more. The assumption that there is a direction in the judgment sought to be reviewed to take departmental action against the review petitioners is totally misplaced. There is no such direction in the judgment. The review petition fails. The same is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.23/01.