T A RAJENDRAN Vs. GOVERNOR OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is yet another litigative adventure of the petitioner in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The order assailed is that of the Governor of Kerala; and the person attacked is the Chief Minister. The state cabinet took a decision on 28-11-1985, sanctioning the issue of a licence for the establishment of a distillery for the manufacture of spirits. About two months later on 18-2-1986 the Chief Minister flew from Cochin to Calicut and back in a helicopter of the Indian Navy. These acts, according to the petitioner, constituted offences punishable under S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The Chief minister of a State cannot, however, be prosecuted for such offences, without the sanction of the Appointing Authority, which in the present case, is the governor of Kerala. The petitioner made the necessary application on 25-2-1986. That was supplemented by other petitions submitted on 17-3-1986 and 12-4-1986. The Governor of Kerala declined sanction for prosecution by his communication dt. 24-4-1986. The order is a brief one and it reads : "referring to the above, I am to inform you that the governor finds no case for granting permission to prosecute the Chief Minister under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Your request has therefore been declined by the governor. " The above order is in challenge in this writ petition. The abuse of the discretion vested in him, extraneous considerations exercising their influence, and absence of a speaking order, are some of the reasons highlighted in the writ petition and stressed at the time of arguments. The order of the Governor Ext. P9 is sought to be quashed, and a writ of mandamus according sanction to the petitioner to prosecute the 2nd respondent under section 6 of the Act for the commission of offences under S. 5 (1) (d) of the Act is also sought for.

(2.) THE principles relating to the grant of sanction, when in an attempted prosecution of such an important functionary like the Chief minister of a State is involved, have now been laid down by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner can now be examined with reference to the two items in relation to which prosecution was intended to be instituted.