DILEEP MATHEW KOLLAMULA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant in CMP No.328 of 2016 pending before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint is filed alleging that the accused therein had entered into a conspiracy to make unlawful gain in the construction of Kozhenchery-Melukara-Ranni Road. The original estimate for the construction was Rs.7,02,03,145/-, which, according to the petitioner, was enhanced to Rs.13.5 Crores without following due procedure. The petitioner has alleged that, within weeks of construction of the road, the tarring was damaged at many points, which apparently is due to the inferior material used. As directed by the Special Court, a Quick Verification was conducted by the Vigilance Department and Ext.P3 report submitted. The petitioner's specific allegation is that several illegalities and irregularities committed by the PWD officials is deliberately suppressed in Ext.P3 report and even the Vigilance Director, had, after scrutiny, pointed out vital defects in the Quick Verification report. In such circumstances, petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.12756 of 2018 seeking a direction to the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to enforce the scrutiny reports of the competent officers. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment, closed the writ petition directing the Special Court to dispose of CMP No.328 of 2016 in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Special Court issued Ext.P9 order in C.M.P No.328 of 2016, permitting the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities for approval of sanction to proceed against the Government officials arrayed as accused in the complaint. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 request for prosecution sanction and the same was accepted by the first respondent on 24.10.2018. The grievance in this writ petition is that, in spite of almost two years having lapsed, a decision has not been taken on Ext.P10 request and consequently, it is not possible for the Special Court to proceed with CMP No.328 of 2016. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P10 expeditiously.

(2.) Heard Sri.Thomas T.Varghese, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the limited relief sought, notice to respondents 3 to 6 is dispensed with.

(3.) The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P10 within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.