M K PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this original petition as a public interest litigation for and on behalf of the public and to protect their interest. According to the petitioner several corrupt practices are repeatedly going on in the telephone exchanges at Pala, Erattupetta, Ettumanoor and Ramapuram of Kottayam districts causing loss of many lakhs of rupees to the telecommunication department in particular and to the nation in general. The foundation of those allegations are mainly Exts. P5, P6 and P7 press reports. The petitioner has also filed Ext. P8 petition before the Additional Director General of Police, Trivandrum and Ext. P10 petition before the 5th respondent. He has also approached the 6th respondent by filing Ext. P13 petition. The petition filed before the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Trivandrum was forwarded to the third respondent as per Ext. P9 to take necessary action. The 5th respondent by Ext. P11 informed the petitioner that on a preliminary enquiry carried out, it was seen that most of the alleged irregularities could not be proved due to lack of material evidence. It was also stated that they were keeping a close watch. By Ext. P12 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CB CID (SR), Trivandrum informed the petitioner that a complaint before the C. B. I. (Cochin) might be filed.

(2.) Dissatisfied with the lethargy and the laxity on the part of the various respondents in responding to the serious allegations made by the petitioner against the officers of the telecommunication department, petitioner filed this original petition mainly praying for a writ of mandamus to the 6th respondent to conduct immediate investigation into the allegations made in Ext. P13 complaint and Ext. P7 paper report and to file a copy of the investigation report before this court within a stipulated time. Respondents 2, 5 and 7 to 10 have filed counter affidavits. The 4th respondent has filed a statement. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 5 it was stated that no corrupt practices were reported to have taken place in the places mentioned in the statement of facts and there was no loss to the telecommunication department. It was further stated that the Sub Divisional Engineer (Vigilance) in the office of the General Manager, Telecommunications. Kottayam had conducted a very detailed investigation on the alleged burning of 1500 Kg of cable. Each and every allegation made by the petitioner had been the subject of departmental enquiry. Therefore it was finally stated that there was no ground for this court to give any direction and that none of the allegations made by the petitioner had been substantiated on enquiry and that the petitioner had been substantiated on enquiry and that the petitioner had been carrying on a smear campaign through papers and otherwise. In the statement filed by the 4th respondent it was stated that 5 cases were charged by the local police and that a special team had been constituted in Pala Sub Division to conduct further investigation in the above cases. The allegation that local police did not take any legal action on the offences reported was denied.

(3.) The 7th respondent who is the main target of attack by the petitioner filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is the working President of INTUC and close companion of the circle Secretary of F. N. T. O. line staff and class IV which is affiliated to INTUC and that the above said circle Secretary Sri. P.C. Thomas is working as a Lineman at Telephone exchange, Pala. It is further submitted that there were number of complaints of cheating against the said circle Secretary, Sri. P. C. Thomas, from the public. The 7th respondent was the disciplinary authority of the said Sri. P.C. Thomas and he forwarded all the complaints to the vigilance wing of the department for proper enquiry and a strong case had been made out against Sri. P.C. Thomas. The cause for filing this original petition under the style of public interest litigation is the bitter animosity which Sri. P.C. Thomas is having against the 7th respondent. Therefore it was forcefully argued that this original petition is lacking in bonafides and therefore this court may not interfere in favour of the petitioner under Art.226 of the Constitution. In support of the above argument, the counsel for the 7th respondent relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary 1992 (4) SCC 305 . The Supreme Court while dealing with the pubic interest litigation has observed as follows: