IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35092 of 2010(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- HARIKUTTAN THAMPAN,KANNADIKOVILAKAM MAIN ROAD,GROWER LANE,THRIPPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT REVENUE (DEVASWOMS)DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-PIN-695 001 2. THE DIRECTOR VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU TRIVANDRUM-4 3. DR.T.K.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, (FORMER PRESIDENT OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD) RESIDING AT THAYYIL HOUSE,KANIMANGALAM THRISSUR DIST-680 027 4. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING, THRISSUR-1 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY R1-2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.RAGHURAJ, SC. FOR CDB. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 35092/2010(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11/10/2004. P2: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27/12/2005 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E7 - VE 28/04/CRE 207812004 DATED 15/02/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 21/11/2006. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 817/2008 DATED 01/02/2008. P6: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 31/12/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP(C) No.35092 of 2010-J ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd December 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner raises certain allegations against the third respondent and states that he has been found to be liable for being proceeded against, following an enquiry and a vigilance enquiry report is also available holding that the third respondent is liable to be proceeded on charges of offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act, 1988. We see that there was some controversy as to whether the third respondent would fall within the ambit of that statute. However, the learned Senior Government Pleader states that a case has been filed by the registration of an F.I.R. by the competent police officer and the lodgment of a report in that regard with the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, as VC 6-10. In this set of circumstances, all that is required in writ jurisdiction is to record the said submission and to direct that the WPC 35092/10 2 Government will ensure that due process of law would be followed. We also leave it to the parties to bring to the notice of that court in the event of any further directions to be followed, since that should definitely be within the jurisdiction of the criminal court including in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(1) KLT 724 (SC). The writ petition is ordered accordingly without entering the merits of the allegations either way and leaving open all other contentions. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 35092/10 3