The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- i) issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate steps against the fifth respondent for submitting false income return
ii) declare that the first respondent is empowered and duty bound to take action as per Section 4 and 22 of the Kerala Lok Ayuktha Act when the competent authority had filed his report as evidenced by Ext.P1.
iii) issue such other order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) direct the respondent to pay the cost of the proceedings.”
The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent who is the Chairman of the Chalakudy Municipality had furnished incorrect details in the income declaration that he had submitted in support of his candidature. Ext.P1 report is relied upon to point out that the complaint has been found to be substantiated upon an enquiry conducted by the competent authority. However, no action was taken by the fourth respondent. The petitioner has therefore sought for the issue of appropriate directions in the matter.
2. Adv.Renu D.P. appears for the first respondent. The counsel draws my attention to Ext.P6 order of the first respondent by which, the petitioner had sought permission to withdraw his complaint, which request was accepted. Having withdrawn his complaint, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to complain of inaction on the part of the first respondent before this Court. According to the counsel, in spite of the above, the first respondent has written to the Government to amend Section 22 of the Lok Ayuktha Act to confer power on the said authority to punish such act. The response of the Government is awaited.
3. Adv.Sheejo Chacko appears for the fourth respondent. According to the counsel, the petitioner had initiated proceedings against the fifth respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakkudy under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as well as Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said petition was dismissed by the Magistrate's Court. Criminal Revision Petition 1701/2014 filed by the petitioner against the order of the Magistrate has also been dismissed by this Court on 1.10.2014. A certified copy of the order has been handed over to me by the counsel across the Bar. It is pointed out that in view of the above proceedings, no further action is either necessary or called for, in the matter.
4. Heard. It is true that Ext.P1 reveals a finding by the competent authority regarding the culpability of the fifth respondent in not disclosing his assets. What action has to be taken in the matter is the issue. The Government would have to take a decision on the request of the first respondent that is pending consideration of the second respondent. The second respondent shall be at liberty to take appropriate decision in the matter. Since the petitioner has unsuccessfully pursued the matter before the Magistrate's Court I am not satisfied that any further orders are necessary to be issued in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. The second respondent shall be at liberty to address itself to the issue and take a decision as to what action should be taken in such circumstances. Unless there is a legal provision that penalises the fifth respondent for the alleged act of non-disclosure of his assets properly, no action is possible.
In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take necessary action on the request of the first respondent referred to above.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge