VACHAPURATH KHADEEJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that certain unauthorized and illegal corrections have been made in Ext.P6 Asset Register maintained by the 4 th respondent - Grama Panchayat and that she had therefore, preferred Ext.P9 complaint before the 2nd respondent - Director, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, which has now led to Ext.P15 report to be filed after investigation.

(2.) The petitioner says that she has also, in the meanwhile, approached the 3rd respondent - Deputy Director of Panchayat, through Ext.P14 representation, seeking necessary action to restore the entries in the Asset Register, based on Ext.P15 report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The petitioner therefore, prays that Ext.P14 be directed to be taken up and disposed of, adverting to Ext.P15 report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader - Smt.Pooja Surendran, submits that since the petitioner's complaint, namely Ext.P9, preferred before the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau has already been investigated and leading to Ext.P15 report, the official respondents, do not stand in the way of Ext.P14 being taken up by the Deputy Director of Panchayats and disposed of in terms of law. She says that no further orders may be issued against the other official respondents in this writ petition.