R BALAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Sri. R. Balakrishna Pillai, is a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. He belongs to the Kerala Congress (J) which is a component of the United Democratic Front (hereinafter referred to as the U.D.F.) led by the Congress (I). He was a Minister holding the portfolio of Electricity in the previous Ministry (U.D.F. Government) which was in power from 1982 to 1987. In thin Original Petition, the attack is against Ext.P6, a notification issued by the State Government dated 16-12-1987. The said notification is one issued under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952). As many as 14 allegations against the petitioner are included in the Appendix to Ext.P6. A free translation of the said allegations in English (as furnished by petitioner's counsel) is as follows :

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner was a Minister in the L.D.F. Ministry, led by Sri. E.K. Nayanar, which was formed in 1980, that it fell down in 1981, that there was a general election in 1982 when a U.D.F. Government was formed, the petitioner was elected and was the Minister of Electricity in the U.D.F. Government, which was formed in 1982, he was a leading member in the Kerala Congress, which was instrumental for the change in the political set up and the elections in 1982, that as a Minister for Electricity he firmly dealt with the strike sponsored by the Marxist Party of which Sri. E.K. Nayanar was the leader, that Sri E.K. Nayanar and other members of his party were relentlessly availing of every opportunity to worst the petitioner under any circumstances, that the political vendetta and personal animosity on the part of Sri. E.K. Nayanar (Chief Minister) and his party against the petitioner and the present action initiated under Ext.P6 is a concurrence of the said personal animosity and political vendetta, and so Ext.P6 is mala fide. It is also stated that out of six signatories (Sri. E.K. Nayanar and 5 other M.L.As.) who submitted the memorandum to the former Chief Minister on 3-8-1983, 4 of them are Ministers in the present L.D.F. Ministry. The petitioner further states that as per Ext.P1 executive order dated 20-12-1969, issued, pending the enactment of the Kerala Public Men (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1983 (Act 6 of 1984), Government set up an interim machinery to enquire into the allegations against public men. 'Public men' included Ministers and Chief Minister and the enquiry for misconduct against a public man should be referred to a Commissioner, who shall be a serving or retired High Court Judge. In the case of the petitioner, as per Ext.P1(a) dated 12-8-1983, Justice Janaki Amma (Retired) was appointed to conduct an enquiry into 12 allegations (Allegations Nos. 4 and 14 in the appendix to Ext.P6 omitted). After enquiry, Justice Janaki Amma submitted Ext.P2 report dated 1-5-1984 stating that none of the allegations were "established or proved". Sri. E.K. Nayanar and 5 others, who submitted the memorandum to the Chief Minister, never participated in the enquiry. In Ext.P2 report it was found that allegations Nos. 1 to 11 referred to her were not established or proved. Regarding allegation No. 12, it was held that it is not a serious irregularity on the facts. Regarding charge No. 4 in Ext.P6 the Government had appointed Justice P. Narayana Pillai (Retired) as the Commissioner. He had submitted Ext.P3 report dated 11-10-1982, holding that the allegations are without substance. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegation No. 14 in Ext.P6 is vague. The former U.D.F. Cabinet was not inclined to refer the said question. The former Government (U.D.F.) accepted the findings by the Enquiry Commissions (Ext.P4) accepting Justice Sri. P. Narayana Pillai's report by order dated 17-3-1983 and Ext.P5, accepting Justice Kumari P. Janaki Amma's report by order dated 15-11-1984). On these premises, it is argued as follows : The enquiry initiated as per Ext.P6 is mala fide. The purpose of an enquiry under S.3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952, is only to "collect" or "gather information" relating to "any definite matter of public importance". Justice Janaki Amma, in Ext.P2 report, found that allegations Nos. 1 to 11 referred to her, were not established and for allegation No. 12 no action need be initiated. Similarly, for charge No. 4, Justice Narayana Pillai held that it is one without substance. Charge No. 14 was found to be vague by the earlier Council of Ministers. In the light of Ext.P2 report of Justice Janaki Amma and Ext.P3 report of Justice Narayana Pillai, there is nothing which remains to be ascertained or investigated and facts relating to all the 14 charges have already been gathered or collected by the Government. Since the entire facts and files are with the Government, there is no further necessity to get information by exercising the statutory power under S.3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act. Moreover, Exts.P2 and P3 reports were considered by the Cabinet and accepted by the Government (Ext.P4 and Ext.P5). Out of the six signatories to the complaint filed before the Chief Minister, 4 of them are Ministers now. Though as per Exts.P2 and P3 reports it has been stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established, without any further or additional material and without any application of the mind, the State Government has referred all the 14 charges to the Commissioner appointed under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952. The charges were once investigated by two retired Judges of this Court. They found that the charges were not established. In the light of the above, the power vested in the Government, under S.3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, has been exercised for extraneous reasons to wreak vengeance on the petitioner. There is no reason to order the appointment of a fresh Commission under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, in the light of Exts.P2 and P3 reports. There is no necessity to have "more information" or enquiry, than those reflected in Exts.P2 and P3. There is a total absence of reasons to deviate from Exts.P2 and P3. On these premises, it was contended that the power vested under S.3 of the Act has been exercised mala fide, without application of the mind and Ext.P6 has not been passed in accordance with law. It is illegal and unreasonable and is an abuse of power and so unauthorised. Briefly stated the main thrust of attack against Ext.P6 centered round two aspects, which were highlighted during arguments, to the effect that Ext.P6 was passed "without application of the mind" and that it is "irrational" or "unreasonable".

(3.) It is also stated that the present L.D.F. Government, led by Sri. E.K. Nayanar, is biased against the petitioner due to political rivalry.