IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30055 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 12/171, VELLAN STREET, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY ADVS. SRI. N. RAGHURAJ SMT. K. AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU (V.A.C.B), REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE / STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCNO.30055/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER BEARING G.O.(RT.)NO.484/2000/TD DATED 06.07.2000. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.07.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2000 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 29.10.2002 IN O.P.NO.4173/02. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 10.11.2003 FILED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VACB, PALAKKAD IN CRL.M.C.NO.4326/03. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.6049/E3/84/TAXES DEPARTMENT DATED 09.11.2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30055 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T In 1994, petitioner was appointed as the licenced stamp vendor at Cherplassery in Palakkad District. Subsequently, he was arrayed as accused No.4 in V.C 12/1999, a crime registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB). In view of his involvement in the aforesaid case, accepting the recommendation of the VACB, Ext.P1 order was issued by the 1st respondent terminating the licence. 2. Representations made by the petitioner for restoration of his licence were rejected by Exts.P3 and P4 orders of the Government stating that the request can be considered only after termination of the criminal proceedings. At that stage, petitioner approached this Court challenging Exts.P3 and P4 by filing OP No.4173/2002. However, relief was not granted even in Ext.P5 judgment. Subsequent representation made by the Government also was rejected by Ext.P7. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the aforesaid proceedings and to direct that the stamp vendor's licence be WPC No. 30055/09 :2 : restored to the petitioner. 3. One of the contention raised is that, in Ext.P6 statement filed by the VACB before this Court, in Crl.M.C.No.4326/03 filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR registered against him, it was stated that ,they could not gather evidence to involve the accused in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that therefore the case was made over to the local police. 4. However, from the report dated 14/11/2011 obtained by the learned Government Pleader from the Circle Inspector of Police, Cherplassery, it is seen that on handing over investigation, crime No.208/03 was registered by them and that investigation was conducted. It is also seen that the allegations against the petitioner are that, violating the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Rules, petitioner sold stamp paper exceeding the limit of `10,000/- and on the strength of which, documents were created and got registered. It is stated that, in the process, Government lost revenue and that to legitimize the sale of stamp papers, petitioner had manipulated the nalvazhi also. It is also stated that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.4 and that WPC No. 30055/09 :3 : investigation has concluded and that the charge sheet will be lodged before the Jurisdictional Court without any further delay in the matter. 5. From the facts therefore it is evident that although the VACB handed over the investigation to the local police, petitioner is not exonerated of the allegations. He is also proposed to be included as accused No.4 in the charge sheet to be filed before the Court. Therefore, at this stage, the reasons which resulted in the termination of his licence still survives and in such a situation this Court will not be justified in finding fault with Ext.P1. 6. Having regard to the above, the prayer of the petitioner to interfere with Ext.P1 at this stage is premature, and therefore, is rejected. However, fact remains that the incident in question took place in 1999. Therefore, inordinate delay in the investigation has already caused. 7. From the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is seen that the investigation is almost concluded and that the charge sheet will be forwarded soon before the Trial Court. Having regard to the above, I direct that the investigation officer in Crime No.208/03 of the Cherplassery WPC No. 30055/09 :4 : Police Station will conclude the formalities and file the charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate immediately on the production of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that in case the criminal court concludes in his favour, it will be open to the petitioner to move the 1st respondent for review of Ext.P1. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp