IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31951 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.S.ABBAS,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SEYED MUHAMMED,VADAKKAYIL VEEDU, IDUVETTIKARA,KARRIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI 685 588. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-01. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION,THODUPUZHA.PIN-685584. 3. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,JALA BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-01. 4. SHRI.M.C.JOHN,SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (RETD.)KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,MUVATTUPUZHA.685564. 5. SHRI RAJU,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY , P.H.DIVISION,THODUPUZHA.683684. 6. SHRI.RAZI,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,P.H.DIVISION,THODUPUZHA.683684. 7. SHRI.P.N.SURESH,ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,P.H.DIVISION,THODUPUZHA.683684 8. SMT.VALSALA,ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,P.H.DIVISION,THODUPUZHA.683684 9. SHRI.MOHANAN,ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,P.H.DIVISION,THODUPUZHA.683684 10. SHRI.SALI P.MATHEW,S/O.MATHAI, PULIMANAKKAL VEEDU,MANAKKADU PO, THODUPUZHA.683684 R1 & R2 BY GOVT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY M.DINESH,SC FOR WATER AUTHORITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31951 OF 2010 (T) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, upon a complaint made by him, Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner ordered the 2nd respondent to file FIR/report of allegations/corruption against respondents 4 to 9, who are employees of the Kerala Water authority. The writ petition was filed complaining that despite the lapse of three months, nothing tangible was done by respondents 1 and 2. 2. Learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 submits that pursuant to the order passed by the Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, 12 witnesses were examined and that quick verification enquiry is in progress. He also submits that expeditious action is being continued to comply with the directions of the Special Judge. Thus, it is obvious that the premise on which the petitioner has approached this Court, namely that, there is inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2, is factually incorrect. Therefore, recording the submission of the learned WPC No. 31951/10 :2 : Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp