IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 592 of 2010(S)
1. BOBBY KURUVILA, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYANAND, AGED 54 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. V.N.SASIDHARAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MANOJ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/07/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in
W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition to
initiate proceedings in contempt against the respondents herein,
who, it is alleged, have wilfully not complied with the judgment
dated 27.11.2006 in W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005.
2. W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 was a writ a petition filed by
the petitioner herein alleging that a complaint against the 5th
respondent, a senior police official of the Indian Police Service,
which respondent Nos.2 and 3 were duty bound to enquire and
investigate, was not being properly dealt with by them.
3. When that petition came up for hearing on
27.01.2010, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
after completing the enquiry, factual report shall be filed within
a period of 6 months. Accepting that submission, the said
proceedings were closed.
4. This contempt of court case has been filed by the
petitioner on 21.05.2010 to complain that notwithstanding the
C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in
W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 2
elapse of more than three years, the directions in the said
judgment have not been complied with. According to the
petitioner, “factual report”, which the Vigilance Police is
supposed to submit after completion of investigation before the
court, has not been filed so far.
5. Notice was ordered to respondent Nos.1 and 2. They
occupy the office shown as respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the Writ
Petition. Respondent No.1 has filed a detailed affidavit. In such
affidavit, the 1st respondent submits that there has been no wilful
disobedience of the directions in the judgment in W.P(C)
No.361795 of 2005 (Annexure-A2 hereinafter) either by the two
respondents herein or their predecessors in office.
6. The affidavit filed by the 1st respondent shows that to
expedite action and to strictly comply with the directions in
Annex.A2 judgment, the responsibility of enquiry into the
complaints raised against the 5th respondent in Annex.A2 was
entrusted with two different officials. The allegation of
disproportionate amassment of wealth was assigned to a Deputy
Inspector General, whereas the other allegations were ordered
to be enquired into by the 4th respondent. Both of them
C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in
W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 3
submitted their reports in due time, ie. before the expiry of a
period of six months from Annex.A2 judgment. A report was
submitted to the Director of Vigilance about the outcome of such
enquiry by the said two police officials. In respect of the enquiry
into disproportionate amassment of wealth, the allegations were
found to be true and correct. Consequently a crime has now
been registered as Crime No.VC3/2001/SCE under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter is now being
investigated by the Vigilance Police. The learned Government
Pleader submits that the investigation is in progress and in the
very nature of the allegations, some further time will be required
to complete the investigation. The learned Government Pleader
undertakes that the officers presently in charge shall do the
needful and ensure that a final report is filed before court in that
crime as expeditiously as possible. The learned Government
Pleader submits that no time limit may be prescribed for the
completion of investigation as in the very nature of the
allegations, further time will be required and it will be
impossible now to undertake that the final report shall be filed
within any prescribed period of time. Any such directions may
C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in
W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 4
indirectly enure to the benefit of the accused and, in these
circumstances, the discretion of the Investigating Officer may
not be fettered by issuing any specific directions, submits the
learned Government Pleader.
7. So far as the other part of the allegations which were
enquired into by the Superintendent of Police is concerned, it is
reported that the Superintendent of Police in his enquiry was
satisfied that the 5th respondent in Annex.A2 was contumaciously
responsible for certain acts. These acts, according to the
Vigilance Police, did not warrant registration of a crime. The
Superintendent of Police, who conducted the enquiry was of the
opinion that departmental action will have to be pursued.
Incorporating that recommendation, report was submitted to the
Director of Vigilance and the Director of Vigilance is seized off
the matter. Appropriate orders are expected from the
Government and, in these circumstances, the learned
Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents undertakes
that the needful shall be done by the Director of Vigilance and
the Government shortly.
C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in
W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 5
8. The learned Government Pleader submits that, in
these circumstances, there is no question of any wilful
disobedience or contempt having been committed by respondent
Nos.3 and 4 in the Writ Petition or the incumbents in office from
time to time. In these circumstances, no further action may be
pursued in this contempt of court case against respondent Nos.1
and 2 herein, submits the learned Government Pleader.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the undertaking in Annex.A2 order was that “factual report”
shall be filed. According to the petitioner, submission of a report
after the enquiry then pending is not sufficient. In order to
comply with the undertaking given by the learned Government
Pleader in Annex.A2, the final report after investigation must
have been filed.
10. I am afraid, this contention cannot be accepted. The
expression “factual report” was not evidently employed in
Annex.A2 judgment in any technical sense. An enquiry was
pending and what this Court expected was that such enquiry
must be completed and report submitted to appropriate
authorities. Evidently the enquiry officer/officers can submit
C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in
W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 6
their report only before the Director of Vigilance, which they
have already submitted and, in these circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the respondents herein cannot be held to be guilty
of any wilful contempt.
11. I may hasten to observe that I take note of the plight
of the petitioner. He had come to this Court in 2005 demanding
proper enquiry and action into a complaint filed against the 5th
respondent. Even today, though, as I have already noted, there
is no wilful contempt, no effective final action has been taken in
his complaint. I need only express that it is incumbent on the
officials concerned to ensure that the investigation into the
crime registered is completed as expeditiously as possible.
Departmental action on the other allegations must also be taken
to bring the proceedings to its logical conclusions. Such action
is necessary to restore the faith of individuals like the petitioner
in the rule of law.
12. In these circumstances, with the observation that I
expect that the investigation in Crime No.VC3/2001/SCE of
Vigilance of Police shall be completed and final report shall be
filed before court and expecting that appropriate decision on the
C.C.C No.592 of 2010 in
W.P(C) No.36179 of 2005 7
question of departmental action against the 5th respondent shall
be taken by the authorities concerned as expeditiously as
possible and making it clear that the option of the petitioner to
approach this Court afresh if appropriate action is not taken on
the above subjects with expedition, this Contempt of Court Case
is dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-