IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 165 of 2010 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31737/2009 Dated 17/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- K.SIVANANDAN, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. WAVER OF LAW (REGISTRATION NO.ER 242/2) AN ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN LITERARY, SCIENTIFIC & CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.OMANAKUTTAN,S/O.SREEDHARAN,AGED 34, MANGALASSERRY BUILDING., CHERANELLOORE,ERNAKULAM-683034 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, MIDDLE ZONE, KOCHI-17. R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.C.CHARLES R2 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman, Ag. C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.165 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT P.R.Raman, Ag. C.J. This is an appeal arising from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.31737 of 2009. The 4th respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein against whom a crime was registered. The petitioner in the writ petition which is a charitable institution came to this Court, inter alia, contending that though final report was submitted before the court, there was no sanction produced. Hence it was returned, but not re-presented. Therefore, the writ petitioner sought for a direction for disposal of the application for sanction expeditiously. 2. The learned Single Judge while giving the direction to take a decision on the application for sanction to prosecute the 4th respondent without any delay and at any rate within two months, however, made an observation as follows: “If fourth respondent was arrested, while accepting bribe and investigation reveals that an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was W.A.No.165 of 2010 - 2 - committed, I do not find any reason why sanction is not being given, without delay, to prosecute the fourth respondent.” 3. The contention raised in this writ appeal is that this observation will induce the authority to grant sanction and take away the right of the 4th respondent. At this stage, since the sanction application is only pending consideration, this Court could not have made any such observation which will have an inducing effect on the authority and serious prejudice to the 4th respondent. In such circumstances, the above quoted sentence will stand deleted from the impugned judgment and the application for sanction will be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. In view of the pendency of the matter, we extend the period for disposal of the sanction application by two months from today. Writ appeal is disposed of with the above modification. P.R.Raman, Ag. Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns