IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2007 / 1ST ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3302 of 2007(R) ------------------------- CRMP.361/2006 of ENQUIRY COMMR.& SPL.JUDGE,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.B. ANILKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, KARAKKATT HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3302 of 2007(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.03.2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THRISSUR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.29.3.06 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.3302 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the inaction on the part of the respondents, to whom he had submitted Ext.P1 complaint. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits and a statement to that effect has been filed by the 2nd respondent to apprise the Court of the fact that on the complaint filed by the petitioner, a proper enquiry has been conducted and completed. After scrutiny, direction has been issued to register a crime and accordingly a vigilance case has been registered as VC 04/2007/TSR. The same is now under investigation, submits the learned Government Pleader and reports the 2nd respondent. 3. In the light of these developments, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not pray for any further relief. He only submits that it may be ensured that the investigation in the said vigilance case is conducted and completed efficiently and expeditiously by the respondents. Needles to say that such an investigation will have to be conducted by the respondents. In the circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied that any time bound direction need be issued. I need W.P(C).No.3302 of 2007 2 only say that I expect the Investigating Officer to conduct and complete the investigation efficiently and expeditiously. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-