IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 15036 of 1999(M)
1. JOJI JOSEPH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
For Respondent :ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :13/09/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
----------------------------------------------------
O.P. NO. 15036 OF 1999 M
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th September, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
Petitioners are respectively President and General Secretary of a
Society. Petitioners are before us in this Original Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for several reliefs.
2. At the time of hearing of the Original Petition, learned counsel,
Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, would submit that Ext.P9 is the report of
the Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance), addressed to the Principal
Secretary to Government, Forest and Wildlife (C) Department,
Thiruvananthapuram, dated 3rd November, 1998. By the said
communication, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance) had reported
that large number of trees in Brahmagiri Estate and Reserve Forest area
surrounding Brahmagiri Estate have been cut and removed by party
respondents with the connivance of the Forest Officials and, therefore, had
requested the Principal Secretary to the Government to take appropriate
proceedings not only against the Forest Officials but also against the party
respondents.
3. Since no proceedings were taken, the petitioners had approached
the Principal Secretary to the Government by representation dated
19.5.1996, which has been replied by the Principal Secretary to the
Government by its letter dated 3.3.1999, wherein they have informed the
O.P. NO.15036 of 1999
:: 2 ::
petitioner that the matter is now entrusted to the Vigilance Department for
appropriate survey and enquiry.
4. It is at that stage, the petitioners were before this Court in the
Original Petition filed.
5. Learned single Judge while entertaining the Original Petition had
issued certain directions to the respondents in the Original Petition.
6. Aggrieved by those directions, the contesting respondents were
before this Court in W.A.No.820 of 2000.
7. A Division Bench of this Court, while entertaining the Writ Appeal,
had granted an interim order staying the directions issued by the learned
single Judge. Thereafter, it appears, an advocate commissioner was
appointed to survey the property in dispute and to make an appropriate
report before this Court.
8. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the Director of Vigilance
has made enquiries and also survey and after such enquiries and survey
has filed a report before the State Government and in that, has given a
clean chit to the respondents in this Original Petition.
9. In view of these developments, in our opinion, as on today none
of the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in this Original Petition can be
granted by this Court. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of as
having become unnecessary. However, liberty is reserved to the
petitioners, if they so desire, to question the correctness or otherwise of the
O.P. NO.15036 of 1999
:: 3 ::
report filed by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau before
the State Government in appropriate proceedings.
10. Consequent to the disposal of the Original Petition, all the
pending interlocutory applications are also rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
H.L.DATTU, C.J. &
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
———————————————
———————————————
O.P.NO. 15036 OF 1999
JUDGMENT
13th September, 2007
———————————————