IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2103 of 2008()
1. RAJU PUZHANKARA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.2103 of 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 23rd day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
In our opinion, the way the writ petition is drafted is
highly reprehensive. Unnecessary and unwarranted allegations are made
against the kith and kin of the responsible Ministers of the State and for
making those allegations there is no basis whatsoever.
2. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, the 12th
respondent is managing a financial institution and has defrauded the
depositors and therefore a request is made in the petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution, to entrust the investigation to the
efficient officers of Central Bureau of Investigation, since the police
personnel of the State will not be in a position to make proper
investigation, since the kith and kin of the Ministers are involved along
with the 12th respondent to defraud the creditors.
3. In the writ petition filed, it is not stated whether the
petitioner is a depositor in the financial institution run by the 12th
respondent. It is also not stated how the petitioner is interested in the
WPC No.2103/2008 -2-
depositors who had made the deposits with the 12th respondent.
Therefore, he does not even have the locus to maintain the writ petition.
Fortunately, the petitioner has not styled this petition as a public interest
litigation.
4. In fact, in the present case, a complaint is filed before
the jurisdictional police authorities and the said complaint is registered
and the matter is being investigated by Special Crime Branch Police,
which is headed by an Officer who has sufficient experience.
5. Having gone through the pleadings in the writ petition
and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are satisfied that the
learned Judge was justified in rejecting the petition at the threshold
itself. Therefore, while concurring with the reasoning of the learned
Judge, we dismiss the writ appeal. No order as to costs.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS/dk
