INDU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to take action on a complaint made by them. The VACB was directed to look into the matter and submit a report. Of course, when the writ petition came up for hearing on admission on the first occasion, the court had doubted whether there is anything in the complaint made by the writ petitioners to reveal any offence punishable under the P.C Act . However, the VACB was directed to look into the complaint and submit a report. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (VACB), Southern Range has filed a report that the complaint made by the writ petitioners does not deserve any action on the criminal side, it does not disclose any definite offence under the P.C Act , and that the matter or the dispute agitated by the writ petitioners will have to be adjudicated on the civil side.

(2.) On an examination of the complaint made by the writ petitioners before the VACB, and also the statement of objection filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police regarding the result of the probe made by him, I find no reason to issue a writ of mandamus. The VACB has already considered and examined the complaint of the writ petitioners, and a decision will have to be taken by the VACB. The result of the action taken by the VACB will have to be intimated to the writ petitioners. If any criminal action is declined on their complaint by the VACB, the writ petitioners can very well pursue the appropriate remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. They cannot straight away rush to the High Court and seek a writ of mandamus. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only when other normal and efficacious remedies are not available, or recourse to such remedies failed.

(3.) It appears that the writ petitioners had already approached this Court with a writ petition as W.P.(C) No.6676/2019, and the grievance therein is regarding some property dispute or some boundary dispute in relation to survey demarcations. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Tahsildar to take necessary action on the request made by the writ petitioners for survey demarcation. That must be the actual dispute, and it appears that the real dispute between the writ petitioners and the respondent will have to be adjudicated on the civil side. The writ petitioners are at liberty to pursue their own remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, if at all criminal action is declined by the police authority or the VACB.