IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4525 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.APPUKKUTTA KURUP ,AGED 62 S/O.VASU KURUP, RESIDING AT SREEKUMAR BHAVANAM S.W.THAZHAVA PO,KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRESIDENT TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.G.SADASIVAN NAIR FORMER CHIEF ENGINEER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD RESIDING AT K.SADASIVAN NAIR HOUSE NO.URS 46 UNNI NAGAR, NEAR MARKET, MUDAVAN MUKOT ROAD POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4525 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioner was engaged by the Travancore Devaswom Board to carry out construction and maintenance work at Sabarimala Temple during the festival season of the year 1983. The petitioner made a representation, when the amounts due to him was not paid by the respondents. Ultimately, an arbitrator was appointed by this Court in an earlier proceedings and an award was also passed. That award has become final and the amount as per the award was also paid to the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, some Devaswom officials misappropriated the amount of the work done by him, though he received the amount on the directions of the Supreme Court. Hence, he wanted a vigilance enquiry to be conducted and a W.P.(C) No.4525 of 2009 2 representation was made in that behalf. Subsequently, this Court in O.P.No.22210 of 1997 directed respondents 1 to 3 to hold a detailed vigilance enquiry in terms of the findings contained in Ext.P2. Though there was some delay in filing the report, as usual, finally a report was filed. The petitioner challenges the said report by filing the writ petition. 2. It is not a matter for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the correctness of the report. However, if the report is made basis for any claims against the petitioner, certainly, he can challenge the said report in appropriate proceedings. If, on the other hand, the petitioner is not satisfied with the report, in the sense that nobody is found guilty thereunder, his remedy is not to challenge the report. If any offence is committed to him, he can file a criminal complaint. If the offence is in the nature of a public complaint, prima facie, there is a report and we do not think a further W.P.(C) No.4525 of 2009 3 enquiry is necessary. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. nj.