D.FRANCIS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner herein is a native of Kanyakumari in the State of Tamil Nadu. He has some doubts and reservations about some foreign trips made by the Chief Minister of Kerala. The first respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, and the additional 4th respondent is the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), represented by the Director. The writ petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the VACB to register a crime, and to make investigation on a complaint made by him questioning the foreign trips made by the Chief Minister. At the outset, he was given a direction by the Court to explain certain things. One is whether he has pursued the normal and regular remedies available under the law before rushing to the High Court with a writ petition, the other is whether he has obtained or applied for the previous approval of the competent authority under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), and the third is why he should doubt about the trips made by the Chief Minister in connection with the affairs of the State. He has filed a counter affidavit explaining things. He has no case that he has pursued the remedies possible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as regards the question raised under Section 17A of the PC Act, his approach is that it is not his concern to obtain such approval. Anyway, on getting the complaint, the VACB made a request before the competent authority, but the previous approval under Section 17A of the PC Act has been declined. When previous approval is declined under Section 17A of the PC Act, the VACB is not in a position to proceed further on the complaint. This is the statement given by the VACB. The Government has explained the things regarding the foreign trips undertaken by the Chief Minister. It appears that the writ petition is based on some information collected by the writ petitioner under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act ).

(2.) On a perusal of the materials, I found that every information under the RTI Act is seen collected by the counsel who filed the writ petition. Finding some suspicious role of the counsel in the writ petition, I directed the writ petitioner to appear in court for the purpose of verifying his identity, and also to ascertain whether he has direct involvement in the filing of the writ petition. Accordingly, he appeared in court, and his identity was verified. It is curious to note that the writ petitioner has not received or obtained any information on his own under the Right To Information Act . Everything is seen collected by the counsel. The writ petitioner was directed to produce the copy of the authorisation given by him to the counsel to obtain such information. But a proper and acceptable copy is not seen produced. What is produced is the original containing his signature. I fail to understand how could he produce the original, which must, actually, have been produced before the concerned authority for obtaining information. Anyway, I leave that issue here, and let me come to the complaint.

(3.) The petitioner's complaint is that the foreign trips made by the Chief Minsiter to the United States of America, and to the United Arab Emirates involve elements of corruption, or that under the pretext of public purposes, the Chief Minister undertook journeys for private purposes for which he met expenses from the funds of the State. The informations received by the writ petitioner under the RTI Act , and produced in court will show that the trips were undertaken by the Chief Minister for the affairs of the State, or in connection with the affairs of the State. Of course, it is true that during such trips, the Chief Minister had made some private visits also.