IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 30TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 33295 of 2006(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.A.JOHN, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 70, MANNULLIL HOUSE, KURIYANAD P.O., KURAVILANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHUVELI, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ENVIRON CHEM.LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.M.T.JUNCTION, KALAMASSERY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPDT. OF POLICE, ERNKAULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.)SC,TRAV.TITANIUM SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.33295 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be a public activist and a political leader. He is aggrieved by the proposal to set up a plant to control pollution in the Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. According to him, the decision to set up the plant was not a bona fide decision taken and it was only used as a cloak or cover to siphon out funds of M/s.Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., a State Government owned company. The prayer made is to order an enquiry into the details of the transaction relating to the award of the said contract. 2. The respondents have entered appearance. It is submitted that the contract has been entered into transparently and the company is only implementing the direction of the monitoring committee set up by the Supreme Court to control pollution. As per order in W.A.No.6 of 2001, which is extracted in para.16 of the counter statement filed by the 1st respondent, a Division Bench of this Court had also approved the setting up of the plant. 3. No specific instance of culpable conduct is alleged in the implementation of the said direction and the entering into of the contract. What is demanded is only that an enquiry by the C.B.I into the said transaction. The transaction having been virtually approved W.P(C).No.33295 of 2006 2 by this Court as per the judgment in W.A.No.6 of 2001, the omnibus prayer, to conduct an investigation into that very transaction, does not appear to be justified. 4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed as agreed, but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner or any other to complain about specific instances of any culpable conduct by the company or its officials in the implementation of the direction issued by the Court and in pursuance of the contract entered into for setting up the plant. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-