High CourtsSingle Bench

K. Velayudhan Nair vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 13 September 2021 · Citation: (2021) 09 KL CK 0093

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.Narayana Pisharadi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17A
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C). No. 16160 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 345 words

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J

1.

The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follows:

"(i) To issue a writ of mandamus,order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P1 forthwith;

(ii) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2.

The petitioner had made a complaint to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) with regard to the corrupt practices allegedly committed in granting building permit and occupancy certificate from the Malappuram Municipality. On the basis of that complaint, as per Ext.P1 communication, the Director, VACB has sent a request to the first respondent for granting prior approval for conducting preliminary enquiry under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, the petitioner made Ext.P2 representation to the first respondent praying that prior approval may be granted for conducting the preliminary enquiry as requested by the Director, VACB.

3.

The petitioner laments that the first respondent has not so far taken any decision on Ext.P1.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that, if any request like Ext.P1 is received by the Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance and if he is not the authority competent to grant prior approval or sanction, the practice being followed is to forward it to the authority competent to grant such approval or sanction.

6.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the writ petition can be disposed of by issuing a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate decision on Ext.P1 request made by the Director, VACB and on Ext.P2 representation made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, if already no decision has been taken on them.

7.

Consequently, the first respondent is directed to take a decision on Exts.P1 and P2 within a period of two weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of as above.