IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 839 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34745/2010 Dated 19/11/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ T.P.VISWANATHAN NAIR @ VAZHOOR VISWAN, AGED 80 YEARS,S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR,THEKKETHU HOUSE VAZHOOR,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE HOME SECRETARY (C), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.P.C.IYPE FOR R1,2 G.P. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.839 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appellant applied for a copy of the Enquiry Commission Report submitted by Justice Raghavan to the Government 40 years back. The enquiry was on the firing that took place in Idukki in the year 1968. Government replied to the appellant that the Enquiry Report could not be traced and, therefore, they could not give a copy to the appellant. The learned Single Judge accepted the Government's version and rejected the W.P.(C) filed for a direction to atleast take action against those involved for the loss of the Enquiry Report. 2. Before us counsel for the appellant repeated the same arguments as made before the learned Single Judge. His prayer is for direction to the Government to take action against those who caused disappearance of the Enquiry Report. Government Pleader submitted that delay alone is sufficient to reject the Writ Appeal. We are in complete agreement with the argument of the Government Pleader 2 because those who handled these matters in the Secretariat would have retired decades back and, therefore, there is no scope for enquiry to find out who is responsible for the missing of the Enquiry Report. Consequently we find no merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms