IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16672 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.P. ANIL KUMR, S/O PARAMESWARN PILLAI, KAVIL VEEDU, THURUTHIKKARA MURI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTYHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE, DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR CHRISTIAN CONVERTS FROM SCHEDULED CASTE AND RECOMMENDED COMMUNITIES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BHASKARAN,SC,KSDC FOR CC & RC FOR R3 SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 16672 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is now facing proceedings before the Vigilance Court in connection with the charges under Section Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) © and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409. 465. 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the IPC. Exhibit- P7 is the order of sanction issued in this regard by the Managing Director of the 3rd respondent Corporation pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors of the 3rd Respondent Corporation under 19 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Order of sanction is not challenged in the writ petition. 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner has filed Exhibit-P9 representation before the Government seeking a review of Exhibit-P7 order. Exhibit-P7 sanction order is issued by the Board of Directors of W.P ( C) No. 16672 of 2008 2 the 3rd respondent Corporation which is obviously competent to do so in terms of Section 19 (1) (c ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. May be the Government also has competence to issue an order of sanction. But there is no power available to the Government as such to revise an order of sanction. If therefore, the Government is not competent to revise an order of sanction, which is issued by the Board of Directors, I am not in a position to issue any direction to the Government to consider Exhibit- P9 as such. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was earlier discharged along with others under Exhibit-P3 order by the Vigilance Court. Learned Special Government Pleader points out that this is on account of absence of order of sanction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by Exhibit-P5, the Superintendent of Police of the Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau recommended that in similar cases only a departmental enquiry is necessary. Apparently, the same treatment should have been afforded W.P ( C) No. 16672 of 2008 3 in the present case, it is contended. 5. The transactions in relation to which Exhibit-P7 order of sanction is issued is not the same as the transaction in relation to which Exhibit-P8 order has been issued. Even otherwise, Exhibit-P8 cannot be considered as binding on the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent. It is up to them to take an independent decision. 6. Learned counsel then submits that the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General was sought for and the Advocate General, as per order dated 6.3.2006, had opined that in cases of similar situation what is required is only a departmental enquiry. I have perused Exhibit-P4. Advocate General had only said that there is no legal impediment in withdrawing the case. That is different from saying that the Advocate General specifically opined that no prosecution shall lie. 7. In my view, in the ultimate analysis, what is relevant to be considered, is whether the Government is competent to either confirm or revise Exhibit-P7 which as noted above is not challenged in the writ petition. No W.P ( C) No. 16672 of 2008 4 statutory provision is brought to my notice to empower the Government to revise an order which the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent Corporation is competent to issue in terms of Section 19 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is hence dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 16672 of 2008 5