IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11437 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.M. MOOSAKUTTY, CONTRACTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALLINILAM HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHAM.P.O, ALUVA-5. BY ADV. MR.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. M.M. PRABHAKARAN, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI-16. 2. SMT.SUSAN JACOB, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. V.T.MATHEW, CONTRACTOR, VELLEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIPELINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.M. DINESH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 11437 of 2010-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent to place the first respondent under suspension in pursuance of Ext.P3 order. 2. The petitioner is a contractor under the Kerala Water Authority. The first respondent was working as Executive Engineer during 2004-2005. It is the case of the petitioner that with regard to certain tenders, Vigilance Case Nos.4/2008 and 5/2009 under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120B I.P.C. was registered. By Ext.P1, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Central Range Kochi, requested the 4th respondent Director of Vigilance to take steps to suspend the first respondent till the conclusion of the investigation. The 4th respondent, by Ext.P2 addressed the Government to place the first respondent under suspension, pursuant to which the Additional Chief Secretary to Government issued a direction to the second respondent as per Ext.P3, to place the first respondent under suspension , 3. What is raised as a grievance in this writ petition is that it is the wpc 11437/2010 2 second respondent who retransferred the first respondent to the present post as per Ext.P4, during the pendency of the Vigilance Case. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.7771/2010 before this Court for identical reliefs also. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader that the writ petition itself cannot be maintained, as a direction to suspend an officer cannot be granted at the instance of a third party like the petitioner . It is submitted that there is no cause of action for the petitioner in the matter. 5. It is well settled that in a service matter no public interest litigation can be maintained. Herein, what is projected by the petitioner is the pendency of the vigilance case and the requirement to place the first respondent under suspension. Evidently, it is matter for the concerned authority to decide, especially since the authorities are seized of the matter as evident from Exts.P1 to P3 communications. This Court cannot obviously issue a writ of mandamus to place a person under suspension. Purely, it is a matter coming within the disciplinary powers of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the writ petition seeking for such a direction is not at all maintainable. Further, Ext.P4 is an order passed in the year 2008 also. If the petitioner has got a grievance that the second respondent is not complying with the directions issued by the Government, wpc 11437/2010 3 he can only move the Government in the matter. Since no relief can be granted in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. No costs. sd/ (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) true copy P.S. to Judge kav/