The State's power to direct further investigation post-final report is not absolute and must adhere strictly to procedural norms, reinforcing accountability in public office.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The petitioner in W.P(C).No.1291 of 2021 is the appellant before us in this writ appeal that impugns the judgment dated 15.09.2021 of a learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of this writ appeal are as follows;

The facts in brief:

2. The appellant is stated to be an anti-corruption crusader who has been relentlessly fighting against corruption and nefarious activities of government servants including the 2^nd respondent herein. In the writ petition, he impugned an order dated 28.01.2021 of the State Government in the Vigilance department whereby the State Government had accorded sanction for a further investigation in Crime No.VC3/2007/SCE by invoking Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the “Code”] and entrusting the investigation to another Special Investigation Unit. It was his contention in the writ petition that the State Government could not have passed such an order at a point in time when the criminal proceedings initiated against the 2^nd respondent had reached a stage where the final report had already been filed before the jurisdictional Special Court concerned, and the 2^nd respondent had already approached the said court with an application seeking discharge and thereafter, on its dismissal, approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition that was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant also appraised the writ court of the fact that he had approached this Court at various stages during the course of investigation of the case against the 2^nd respondent and had obtained orders from this Court directing an expeditious completion of the investigation initiated against the 2^nd respondent. It was the specific case of the appellant therefore that the impugned order of the State Government was one that was passed to favour the 2^nd respondent and to help him to protract the investigation so that the proceedings would not reach a stage where it would affect his career progression as a Police Officer in the State Police Force.

The impugned judgment:

3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found that inasmuch as the appellant was not the complainant at whose instance the investigation against the 2^nd respondent had been initiated, or a person who had any direct connection with the case, he did not have the locus standi to maintain a writ petition impugning the Government Order in question. The learned Judge also found that the State indeed had the power to order a further investigation of a case and the existence of the said power could not be denied merely because there was a possibility of misuse of that power. He was also of the view that unless an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power was made out by [sic] those in charge of investigation, the further investigation could not be thwarted by the High Court by interference in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The arguments before us:

4. In the appeal before us, the contentions of Sri. John S. Ralph and Ms. Liz Johny, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, briefly stated, are as follows:

- It cannot be said that the appellant does not have the locus standi to impugn a Government order that had the effect of unnecessarily prolonging the investigation against the 2^nd respondent accused, and that too at the latter's instance. The appellant having approached this Court at every stage when it was noticed that the investigation in question was being stalled, and having obtained directions from this Court against the res