IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19949 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ G.S. SANALKUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.P.V. SADANANDAN, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, ELAGAMON, IROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. AJI THOMAS, S/O.DAVID THOMAS, MAYMANA HOUSE, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 19949 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.307/05 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.895/2009 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15/07/2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.895/2007 OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19949 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta, made to the Government u/s 12(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. Consequential action is also recommended u/s 14(2) of the Act. 2. Irrespective of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Ext.P3 report, it has been stated thus: “But this is a case in which the first respondent who filed the charge sheet against the complainant and his family members does not dispute the allegation by the complainant that he in collusion with respondents 4 and 5 forged documents and created false evidence to implicate complainant and his family members in a false case.” W.P.(C) No. 19949 OF 2011 :2 : 3. The fact that the petitioner did not file any affidavit before the Lok Ayukta despite service of notice is admitted. In such circumstances, on the materials available, if the Lok Ayukta has come to the conclusions as reflected in Ext.P3, this court will not be justified in interfering with the same. 4. In such circumstances if the petitioner is aggrieved, remedy of the petitioner is to move the Lok Ayukta itself invoking its power conferred under the Kerala Lok Ayukta(Powers of Civil Court) Rules 1999. This petition is therefore dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-