IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18996 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KERALA PEOPLE'S FORUM (REG.NO.E.R.766/01 IST FLOOR, DOOR NO.XXXXI/205 EDAPPALLY NORTH P.O.COCHIN 682 024 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SREE KUMAR S.MENON. BY ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIMES)CRIME BRANCH CID, HEAD QUARTERS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD P.B.NO.1727, KOCHI-16 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 5. M/S. KRS LATEX INDIA (PVT) LTD KUTTIANIKKAL BUILDING, 31 IST MILE, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PIN 686 513. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION. 7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 8. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. (ADDL. RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTO VIDE JUDGMENT IN THE W.P.(C).) ADDL. A.G. SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN FOR R1 TO R3, R6&R7 ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. FOR R4 ADV. SRI.PIUS C.MUNDADAN FOR R5 SMT.ANJU DIVAKAR FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.18996 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The Director, Vigilance Department, Trivandrum, is made additional respondent. 2. This is a public interest litigation filed for direction to respondents 1 to 3 to order investigation into fraud and irregularities committed by the 5th respondent with or without the connivance of employees of the 4th respondent. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3, 6 and 7, counsel for the 5th respondent and also Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. It is seen that rubber latex valued crores of rupees was found missing from the 4th respondent's godown. The allegation by the petitioner is that the 5th respondent who stored the goods, physically prevented 4th respondent's entry in the godown for inspection and it is only under Police protection ordered by the High Court on a petition by W.P.(C) 18996/2010 2 the 4th respondent, 4th respondent could inspect their own godown. Admittedly on inspection substantial quantity stored was found missing and balance was found to be not the declared goods i.e. rubber latex, but only water and waste materials. We are informed that two crime cases are already registered in two Police Stations and the 4th respondent has initiated enquiry by their own Vigilance Wing. Even though a Vigilance enquiry is ordered by 4th respondent, considering the nature and gravity of the irregularities committed by those involved, we feel the criminal role of the Government Corporation and it's employees should also be examined. Without interfering with the investigation already going on, we feel an enquiry by the State Vigilance Department is required in the matter. We, therefore, dispose of the W.P.(C) directing the Director, Vigilance Department, who is made additional respondent, to depute a senior level officer to conduct Vigilance enquiry into the matter and to take appropriate action against all involved. There will be a direction to the additional respondent to complete the Vigilance enquiry within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Vigilance Wing of the 4th W.P.(C) 18996/2010 3 respondent-Corporation is also free to proceed with the enquiry. Even though counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that they have cleared their liability to the Bank and the Bank has issued release orders, we do not think we should consider the 5th respondent's dealing with the Bank which is not a party in this W.P.(C) and if they have any grievance, it is upto them to challenge proceedings taken or yet to be initiated against them. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms