IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28829 of 2011(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALPHONS KANNANTHANAM A9,SECTOR 15.,NOIDA 201301 BY . SRI.ALPHONS KANNANTHANAM (PARTY IN PERSON RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. K.P. DANDAPANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE BOOK “MAKING A DIFFERENCE” EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI. OOMEN CHANDY UNDER SEC. 161 OF THE CR.P.C. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. C.J. & P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C). NO. 28829 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C. J. This is a public interest litigation filed by the petitioner, a member of the National Executive of BJP who was previously an MLA and before that an IAS officer, demanding fresh enquiry in a corruption case registered as Crime No. 1/97 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The corruption and malpractices alleged relate to the import of palm oil from Malaysia in 1991. Based on CAG report, vigilance enquiry was ordered by the successor Government in 1997 and in the crime registered by the Vigilance Wing, the Chief Minister and Minister for Food & Civil Supplies of the previous Government were made accused along with officials including the Additional Chief Secretary who was in charge of the Department concerned. We are told that on account of litigations before this Court and even before the Supreme Court , the matter got prolonged and even as of now, though final report is filed, still the W.P.(C) 28829/2011 2 investigating agency sought for permission for further investigation and the Special Judge has granted it. We are told that against further enquiry ordered, one of the accused, who is serving the Government of India as Secretary, has now filed Crl. M.C. 3229/2011 before this Court and the same is pending before the learned Single Judge. Petitioner has filed impleading application in the above Criminal M.C. Thereafter, he has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation stating that the relief sought for by him may not be granted because of the limitations of the jurisdiction of the Single Judge hearing the matter. The prayers in this Public Interest Litigation are the following: “Constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), with distinguished retired IPS officers from various parts of the country, to investigate the case as the Vigilance Department have already made up their mind very categorically to save their master Mr. Oomen Chandy, the current Chief Minister of Kerala. Monitor the case on a weekly basis, as is done by the Supreme court in the 2G case.” 2. We have heard petitioner in person and also the Advocate General who appeared for the State, the sole respondent in the writ petition. Even though petitioner has made direct allegations against the involvement of the then Finance Minister who is presently the Chief Minister of the State, he W.P.(C) 28829/2011 3 has not chosen to make him a party in this writ petition. The First relief sought for by the petitioner, as is clear from the above case, is to constitute a special investigation team with distinguished retired IPS officers from various parts of the country to investigate the case and to hand over the above case presently investigated by Vigilance Department as according to the petitioner, the Vigilance may not be able to investigate the case independently when the Chief Minister is involved. What we notice is that the transaction which lead to the Vigilance case occurred in 1991 when the present Chief Minister of the State was the Finance Minister. Investigation was ordered by the LDF Government when the present Chief Minister and other cabinet members including the accused Chief Minister were in the opposition. The Vigilance after enquiry, arrayed the former Chief Minister (now dead) as the first accused and the Food & Civil Supplies Minister as another accused. Even though statements were recorded three times from the present Chief Minister who was the Finance Minister when the import was made, he was never arrayed by the Vigilance as an accused. We do not know what stopped the Vigilance to exonerate the Finance Minister when the Chief Minister and Food & Civil Supplies are accused, if he was also involved because all of them were in the opposition when the FIR was registered. Petitioner's contention is that clearance by the Finance W.P.(C) 28829/2011 4 Minister is mandatory because without fund being allotted by the Finance Minister import cannot be made. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State contended that the Finance Minister would not have been anyway involved and that could be the reason why he was not arrayed as an accused by the investigating team. As we have already stated, statements from the Finance Minister were recorded three times in the course of 14 years. Except the role played by the Finance Minister in his capacity as such, even now petitioner has not made any allegation against his personal involvement in the negotiation or award of purchase order for import of palm oil. We do not want to consider as to who are the persons involved in the case to be charge sheeted because even now further enquiry is ordered which, of course, is subject matter of the Crl. M.C. Pending before the Single Judge of this Court. As already stated, if the investigating officers could charge sheet the Chief Minister and Food Minister involved we see no reason why they could not implicate the Finance Minister along with them for the last 14 years, if he was also involved. The prayer for appointing an investigating agency by this Court with retired IPS officers from all over India cannot be granted because no such precedent is brought to our notice. Further, we can consider constitution of investigation team or monitor the investigation only if we are satisfied that the investigation now going on is W.P.(C) 28829/2011 5 not proper or efficient. The investigation itself is controlled by the Special Judge who is none other than a District Judge and further investigation now ordered is also by the Special Judge, though the order is subject to scrutiny by the Single Judge in the Crl. M.C. Petitioner has not stated as to why the investigation agency is not trustworthy particularly when they have already charge sheeted the Ex Chief Minister and the Ex Food Minister as the accused. 3. If the petitioner's allegations are true, then records will disclose the role of each and every person involved and we see no reason why all those involved cannot be and are not charge sheeted. The contention of the petitioner that Finance Minister, who approved the transaction, should automatically be an accused in the case cannot be accepted because admittedly, the import is approved by the Cabinet and going by the same logic and reason put forward by the petitioner every Cabinet member should be an accused. When the investigating agency clearly pin points the accused including Chief Minister and another member of the Cabinet, it is not for this Court to consider whether the Finance Minister also should be made accused. Obviously files will be produced before the Vigilance Judge and the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample powers to the Judge to guide investigation or to reject or call for additional report from police. W.P.(C) 28829/2011 6 Since we are not satisfied about the allegations made against the investigation officer or their incapacity there is no question of this Court considering constituting a special investigation team or monitoring investigation, though this Court may in an appropriate case think of doing it. Further, we notice that the alleged offence took place 20 years back and the FIR itself was filed about 14 years back. We are afraid whether this PIL itself is politically motivated. We do not also find any justification to allow the reliefs sought for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-