Point of Law : Sub-section (1) of Section (3) of Act makes it clear that appropriate Government is under a statutory obligation to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in a case where a resolution on that behalf is passed by each House of Parliament.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is an Ex. Councillor of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. Respondent No.5 is the Mayor of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Respondent No.6 is the Councillor elected from Medical College Ward Constituency of the Corporation. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are official respondents.

FACTS

2. The petitioner has come across information from the media that respondent Nos.5 and 6 had requested the District Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], the ruling political party, to provide the list of party members for appointment to various posts in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner found copies of the letters sent by respondent Nos.5 and 6 on their official letterheads in the media. In the copy of the letter (Ext.P1) addressed to the District Secretary of the CPI(M), respondent No.5 had requested to take necessary steps to make available the priority list of candidates to be appointed in the Health Division of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation on contract basis. In Ext.P2 letter respondent No.6 had made a similar request to the Party Secretary.

2.1. The petitioner alleges that it is the usual practice of the Corporation to select persons having political affiliation for appointment in the Corporation. The action of respondent Nos.5 and 6 sending a communication to the District Secretary of the CPI(M) requesting to provide the list of persons to be employed in the Municipal Corporation is against the oath taken by both of them when they had sworn in as Councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The action of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is an attempt to subvert the employment chances of thousands of unemployed youth.

2.2. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (respondent No.4). The petitioner understands that on 7.11.2022 respondent No.5 filed a complaint before the Chief Minister relating to the surfacing of Ext.P1 letter in the media. The petitioner apprehends that an impartial investigation into the allegations levelled by him is impossible due to political reasons.

3. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondent No.4 to register Exhibit P3 complaint lodged by the petitioner.

(ii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State Government to hand over the investigation on Ext.P3 complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

3.1. Alternatively, the petitioner prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Government to appoint a sitting Judge not below the rank of Subordinate Judge to conduct inquiry into the matter.

4. Respondent No.5 resisted the petition contending that the petition is not maintainable. Respondent No.5 submitted that she had left Thiruvananthapuram on 31.10.2022 for Delhi in connection with an official programme and came back only on 4.11.2022. When she returned to Thiruvananthapuram she came across the news regarding the circulation of a forged letter in her name through social media and newspapers. On going through the letter she realised that somebody created the said letter with malicious intentions and an oblique motive to vex political vengeance against her. She initiated action, and based on her complaint Crime No.225/2022 has been registered by the Crime Branch Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram alleging offences punishable under Sections 465, 466 & 469 of the Indian Penal Code. The Crime Branch Police has already started an investigation into the matter. Respondent No.5 further contended that the averments contained in the writ petition are derogatory and defamatory. The petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

5. Respondent No.6 pleaded that he had not indulged in any act which would amount to corruption. He stated that a perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the vacancies mentioned are no