IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 592 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36179/2005 Dated 27/11/2009 .................... PETITIONER: --------------- BOBBY KURUVILA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.C.KURUVILA, KARUVELITHARA HOUSE, MITHRKARI.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VIJAYANAND, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KURADI JOSEPH, PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.N.SASIDHARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VADAYATTIL NARAYANAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.VINODH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition to initiate proceedings in contempt against the respondents herein, who, it is alleged, have wilfully not complied with the judgment dated 27.11.2006 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005. 2. W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 was a writ a petition filed by the petitioner herein alleging that a complaint against the 5th respondent, a senior police official of the Indian Police Service, which respondent Nos.2 and 3 were duty bound to enquire and investigate, was not being properly dealt with by them. 3. When that petition came up for hearing on 27.01.2010, the learned Government Pleader submitted that after completing the enquiry, factual report shall be filed within a period of 6 months. Accepting that submission, the said proceedings were closed. 4. This contempt of court case has been filed by the petitioner on 21.05.2010 to complain that notwithstanding the C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 2 elapse of more than three years, the directions in the said judgment have not been complied with. According to the petitioner, “factual report”, which the Vigilance Police is supposed to submit after completion of investigation before the court, has not been filed so far. 5. Notice was ordered to respondent Nos.1 and 2. They occupy the office shown as respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the Writ Petition. Respondent No.1 has filed a detailed affidavit. In such affidavit, the 1st respondent submits that there has been no wilful disobedience of the directions in the judgment in W.P(C) No.361795 of 2005 (Annexure-A2 hereinafter) either by the two respondents herein or their predecessors in office. 6. The affidavit filed by the 1st respondent shows that to expedite action and to strictly comply with the directions in Annex.A2 judgment, the responsibility of enquiry into the complaints raised against the 5th respondent in Annex.A2 was entrusted with two different officials. The allegation of disproportionate amassment of wealth was assigned to a Deputy Inspector General, whereas the other allegations were ordered to be enquired into by the 4th respondent. Both of them C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 3 submitted their reports in due time, ie. before the expiry of a period of six months from Annex.A2 judgment. A report was submitted to the Director of Vigilance about the outcome of such enquiry by the said two police officials. In respect of the enquiry into disproportionate amassment of wealth, the allegations were found to be true and correct. Consequently a crime has now been registered as Crime No.VC3/2001/SCE under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter is now being investigated by the Vigilance Police. The learned Government Pleader submits that the investigation is in progress and in the very nature of the allegations, some further time will be required to complete the investigation. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that the officers presently in charge shall do the needful and ensure that a final report is filed before court in that crime as expeditiously as possible. The learned Government Pleader submits that no time limit may be prescribed for the completion of investigation as in the very nature of the allegations, further time will be required and it will be impossible now to undertake that the final report shall be filed within any prescribed period of time. Any such directions may C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 4 indirectly enure to the benefit of the accused and, in these circumstances, the discretion of the Investigating Officer may not be fettered by issuing any specific directions, submits the learned Government Pleader. 7. So far as the other part of the allegations which were enquired into by the Superintendent of Police is concerned, it is reported that the Superintendent of Police in his enquiry was satisfied that the 5th respondent in Annex.A2 was contumaciously responsible for certain acts. These acts, according to the Vigilance Police, did not warrant registration of a crime. The Superintendent of Police, who conducted the enquiry was of the opinion that departmental action will have to be pursued. Incorporating that recommendation, report was submitted to the Director of Vigilance and the Director of Vigilance is seized off the matter. Appropriate orders are expected from the Government and, in these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents undertakes that the needful shall be done by the Director of Vigilance and the Government shortly. C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 5 8. The learned Government Pleader submits that, in these circumstances, there is no question of any wilful disobedience or contempt having been committed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the Writ Petition or the incumbents in office from time to time. In these circumstances, no further action may be pursued in this contempt of court case against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, submits the learned Government Pleader. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the undertaking in Annex.A2 order was that “factual report” shall be filed. According to the petitioner, submission of a report after the enquiry then pending is not sufficient. In order to comply with the undertaking given by the learned Government Pleader in Annex.A2, the final report after investigation must have been filed. 10. I am afraid, this contention cannot be accepted. The expression “factual report” was not evidently employed in Annex.A2 judgment in any technical sense. An enquiry was pending and what this Court expected was that such enquiry must be completed and report submitted to appropriate authorities. Evidently the enquiry officer/officers can submit C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 6 their report only before the Director of Vigilance, which they have already submitted and, in these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents herein cannot be held to be guilty of any wilful contempt. 11. I may hasten to observe that I take note of the plight of the petitioner. He had come to this Court in 2005 demanding proper enquiry and action into a complaint filed against the 5th respondent. Even today, though, as I have already noted, there is no wilful contempt, no effective final action has been taken in his complaint. I need only express that it is incumbent on the officials concerned to ensure that the investigation into the crime registered is completed as expeditiously as possible. Departmental action on the other allegations must also be taken to bring the proceedings to its logical conclusions. Such action is necessary to restore the faith of individuals like the petitioner in the rule of law. 12. In these circumstances, with the observation that I expect that the investigation in Crime No.VC3/2001/SCE of Vigilance of Police shall be completed and final report shall be filed before court and expecting that appropriate decision on the C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 7 question of departmental action against the 5th respondent shall be taken by the authorities concerned as expeditiously as possible and making it clear that the option of the petitioner to approach this Court afresh if appropriate action is not taken on the above subjects with expedition, this Contempt of Court Case is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-