Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges Special Court's Order Directing State To Produce Documents In Brewery License Case

A plea has been filed in the Kerala High Court for quashing the order issued by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram seeking the production of documents by the State Government, in relation to the brewery allotment corruption case.

The case pertains to the alleged graft in the issuance of brewery licenses by the previous administration of the ruling party. Approvals for breweries were allegedly given to three distilleries but it was revoked after the opposition challenged the same. The proceedings before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner is based on a complaint by Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala in the year 2018, alleging nepotism and corruption in the allocation of the licenses of breweries. 

The present petition has been filed by an excise officer, also an accused in the case, averring that when Chennithala had applied for sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Governor of Kerala, noting that licenses granted to some of the breweries and distillery companies by the Government had later been withdrawn due to the crisis that had befallen following floods, rejected his application. 

The petitioner submits that it was thereafter that Chennithala had filed the complaint before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner submitted that the complainant had however, not obtained sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to take cognizance against public servants. The petitioner adds that even without obtaining sanction under Section 19 of the Act, the Special Judge had issued an order directing the State Government to produce the documents sought by the complainant. 

"When sanction sought for under Section 17 A of the Act has been rejected by the competent authority, scope for obtaining sanction under Section 19 of the Act is very remote and that the further proceedings on Ext.P1 complaint is a futile effort," the plea states. 

Additionally, the petitioner also avers that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any of the offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against the persons referred as accused in the complaint, including the present petitioner. 

"There is no allegation in Ext.P1 complaint referring any act of the persons to constitute offence. Even as per Ext.Pl complaint, it can be seen that there is no whisper regarding the alleged malpractice or alleged arbitrariness done by any persons. The petitioner has not issued any license, and not taken any decision or issued any orders in this regard," the plea further states. 

The petitioner has thus sought the complaint filed by Chennithala before the Special Judge, as well as the order directing the production of the documents to be quashed. 

The plea has been moved through Advocates M. Sasindran and Satheeshan Alakkadan. 

Case Title: A.S. Ranjith v. Public Prosecutor & Anr.