KALLARA SUKUMARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation filed by the petitioner seeks the assistance of this Court for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to register a proper crime in the matter of import of palmolein in February-March, 1992 against the rules, regulations given by the 1st respondent and giving heavy pecuniary advantage to a foreign company. There is a further prayer to direct respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps against the 3rd respondent who is the Chief Minister of the State and other concerned persons for infringement of the rights and regulations and guidelines fixed by the 1st respondent in regard to the import of palmolein and for reimbursement of loss caused to the State Exchequer by them.

(2.) Petitioner was prompted to file this Original Petition on the basis of a report submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st March, 1993. The report is produced as Ext. P1. According to the petitioner, the relevant portion of Ext. P1 report indicate positively that huge loss was caused to the State running into crores by the action of the State Government acting through the Civil Supplies Corporation. The report further makes it clear that it was the 3rd respondent who was instrumental in bringing about the deal concerned which violated all norms and guidelines issued by the Government of India in the matter of import of palmolien. According to the petitioner, it is further seen from the report that it was the. 3rd respondent who was instrumental in bringing about the deal, which is clear from the relevant files which form the basis of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Petitioner further submits that the Constitution of India provides that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (hereinafter referred to as the C.A.G.) should be placed before the Parliament or the State Legislature and even if the Legislature does not act upon the same, a citizen has the right to redress the grievances of the public for any financial misdemeanor as reflected in the C.A.G.'s report. The Court has power in appropriate cases to give direction to the concerned Government to take appropriate action against a person or authority who, according to the Report, has committed financial misdemeanour resulting in heavy financial loss to the State. Petitioner further alleges that the 3rd respondent who is the Chief Minister of Kerala and who was also the Chief Minister at the relevant lime has acted in the palmolein deal quite contrary to the financial interest of the State and that normally the State or the Union Government would not act in accordance with law unless there are specific directions in the matter by the Court. It is further alleged that from the report Ext. P1 it is clear that the decision taken by the State Government to import palmolien is against the interest of the public and is therefore arbitrary and that necessary directions have to be issued by the Court as prayed for by the petitioner and mentioned above.

(3.) At the admission stage itself, Sri. D. Somasundaram appeared in the case on behalf of the respondent and assisted the Court by placing the relevant position of the matter.