IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8374 of 2011(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.D.JOSEPH, EDITOR ZEEZER NEWS, TIRUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 581. BY P.D.JOSEPH (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. BY G.P. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDRUM DT.14.3.2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.8374 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. W.P.(C) is filed for direction for enquiry and action against Vigilance Officers who have delayed enquiry in the case filed before the Vigilance Court under the Prevention of Corruption act on the import of Palmolin to the State in the year 1991-92. Government Pleader has filed a detailed statement showing the developments in the course of 15 years since ordering Vigilance enquiry in June 1996. On going through the same we notice that several cases have been filed before different courts and in many cases court stayed the proceedings. Even though petitioner's contention that delay will frustrate the purpose of investigation is tenable, we do not think this is a fit case to order enquiry against officers of the Vigilance Department who have served and retired years back. Further, the matter is still pending in the Vigilance Court. We, therefore, do not think this is a fit case for ordering enquiry against the officers of the Vigilance Department for 2 delaying enquiry. Consequently W.P.(C) is closed. Issue copy today itself. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms