A third party lacks locus standi to challenge a government order for further investigation in a corruption case, emphasizing the exclusive right of the State to direct investigations.

JUDGMENT

Is an order issued by the State Government, directing to conduct further investigation of a case, open to challenge by a total stranger to that case? This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

2. The second respondent is a senior police officer. He is the accused in the case C.C.No.3/2020 pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. It is a case based on the final report filed in Crime No.VC3/2007/SCE by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Special Cell, Ernakulam.

3. The offence alleged against the second respondent in the above case is punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The allegation against him is that, during the period from 01.01.2003 to 04.07.2007, he acquired and possessed assets worth Rs.64,70,891/-, which was disproportionate and in excess of 135.80% of his known sources of income.

4. The second respondent filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') in the Special Court. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Special Court on 29.05.2020. The second respondent filed Crl.R.P.No.399/2020 in this Court challenging that order. The above revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 18.12.2020 as not pressed.

5. Thereafter, the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P1 order dated 28.01.2021, granting sanction for conducting further investigation of the case under Section 173 (8) of the Code by another special investigation unit of the VACB. This order was issued by the Government on the basis of a representation made to it by the second respondent.

6. The present writ petition is filed by a third party for quashing Ext.P1 government order.

7. On behalf of the first and the third respondents, the Under Secretary to Government, Vigilance Department has filed a statement, challenging the maintainability of the writ petition and also the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 government order.

8. No notice was issued to the second respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) / Public Prosecutor.

9. The history of the case against the second respondent now pending in the Special Court is narrated in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner made elaborate submissions, expanding the grounds mentioned in the writ petition, challenging Ext.P1 government order. He has contended that Ext.P1 order was issued by the Government with the sole intention of protecting the second respondent and to further protract the trial of the case which is pending against him in the Special Court. Learned counsel has contended that Ext.P1 order is the result of mala fide exercise of power by the Government and it is liable to be quashed.

10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P1 order issued by the Government. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved by Ext.P1 order. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the Government has got every power to issue direction for conducting further investigation of a criminal case pending in a court of law. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Ext.P1 order was issued by the Government on the basis of a representation made by the accused in the case and there was no mala fide exercise of power by the Government in issuing that order.

11. The question of locus standi of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 order shall be considered at first. The requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory. The legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.

12. True, unless specifically indicated by a statutory provision, locus standi