Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Thiruvananthapuram Mayor's 'Letter' Over Jobs For CPI(M) Workers

The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the plea moved by an ex-councillor of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation for CBI or judicial investigation into Thiruvananthapuram Mayor Arya Rajendran's purported letter seeking a list of CPI(M) party members for appointment to various posts on a contract basis in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation.

Justice K. Babu dismissed the plea. 

In the petition, it was alleged that the Mayor Rajendran and the LDF Parliamentary Party Secretary D.R. Anil, who belongs to the ruling party, had requested the CPI(M) Party District Secretary to provide the list of party members for appointment to various posts in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation.

The petitioner had further alleged that in the last two years, more than thousand appointments were made "in this fashion by the Corporation and a detailed investigation into this matter is highly necessary."  It was also submitted in the petition that a complaint was filed by Sreekumar before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau; however, he alleged that high and mighty entities might help the Mayor and the LDF Parliamentary Party Secretary to hush up the matter".

The Counsel appearing for the Mayor had contended that the letter is forged and created with an oblique motive to view political vengeance against her. Based on her complaint, the Crime Branch has started an investigation into the matter, the counsel further added. Furthermore, it was also contended that the averments contained in the writ petition are derogatory and defamatory and that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 

LDF Parliamentary Party Secretary pleaded that he had not indulged in any act which would amount to corruption. His counsel stated that a perusal of the letter issued by him would show that the vacancies mentioned are not in the Municipal Corporation but in the Scheme coming under the National Urban Livelihoods Mission sponsored by the Central Government and that he has no role in appointments made under the scheme. 

Director General of Prosecution appearing submitted before the Court that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has registered a case and is proceeding with the matter as per law. DGP further submitted that the Crime Branch Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram has registered a case and commenced an investigation into the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466 & 469 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issues Raised

(1) If a person has a grievance that the Police have not registered his complaint or having registered it, they have not investigated it properly, can he resort to the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

(2) Has the petitioner established the requirements for issuing a writ directing investigation by CBI in the matter?

(3) Can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952?

Findings

The Court observed that in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P, the apex court had held that if a person's grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done; then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.  

The Court observed that in this present case, the petitioner has not adopted the procedure provided under the Code, as he filed Writ Petition soon after filing the complaint. 

"The petitioner had alternate remedies to redress his grievances. Therefore, he is not entitled to the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The issue is answered against the petitioner. "

On the question of transfer of investigation, the Court relying on a number of Apex Court decisions in this regard including, State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Himanshu Kumar and Others v. State of Chattisgarh, observed that the principle of law that emerges from the precedents is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used "sparingly" and only "in exceptional circumstances". 

The court observed that in the instant case, the complaint lodged by the petitioners does not contain any specific allegations and averments regarding the impartiality of the investigating agency in the writ petition are without any solid foundation. The petitioner failed to place any concrete material compelling transfer of investigation, it said.

The petitioner as an alternate relief had sought for a direction to the government to inquire into the matters alleged in the writ petition by appointing a sitting Judge, not below the rank of Subordinate Judge contending that the issue involved is definitely a matter of public importance and the petitioner has the locus standi to seek relief in the form of a writ of mandamus to direct the Government to appoint a commission to inquire into the matters alleged in the writ petition.

The Court, however, going by the wordings of Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, observed that it is crystal clear that there cannot be a legal or statutory obligation upon the appropriate government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry even if it is a definite matter of public importance. As the Statute imposed no legal duty on the Government to appoint a Commission, the Court observed that the petitioner has no legal right to enforce its performance. Thereby the Court answered the 3rd issue also against the petitioner.

"The words in the section evidently point that a Commission may be appointed by the appropriate Government if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do. As a necessary corollary, even if there is any definite matter of public importance, the Government may not appoint a Commission of Inquiry if it is of the opinion that it is not necessary to do so...The object of constituting a Commission of Inquiry is to enable the Government to make up its mind as to what legislative or administrative measures should be adopted to eradicate the evil found or to implement the beneficial objects it has in view. It is merely a fact finding body for the benefit of the Government."

Advocates K. R. Rajkumar, Jagdeesh Lakshman and Rahul Raj appeared for the Petitioner. 

Director General of Prosecution Advocate T. A. Shaji appeared for Respondents 1, 2 and 4. 

Deputy Solicitor General of India S. Manu appeared for the 3rd Respondent. 

Advocate Suman Chakravarthy appeared for the 5th Respondent and Advocate Thomas Abraham appeared for the 6th Respondent. 

Case Title: G. S. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 646

Click Here To Read/Download The Order