SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
SATHYAKUMAR C – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41993 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SREEJITH S. NAIR, SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN, SMT.MAHIMA
For the Respondents: SPL GP RAJESH.A, SRGP REKHA.S

The court emphasizes the necessity for timely governmental action on complaints related to public grievances.

Headnote:The judgment pertains to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a mandamus for an inquiry into a complaint. The court determined the urgency of examining the complaint and ordered the concerned respondent to issue a decision within six weeks. The key issue revolved around the timely processing and inquiry into grievances as presented by the petitioner regarding alleged irregularities. Ultimately, the court directed prompt action, affirming the responsibility of the respondent to act on the complaint as per the law and noted timelines for compliance.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed under article 226 (Para 1 , 2)
2. report findings of irregularities and need for action (Para 3)
3. direction for timely consideration of the complaint (Para 4 , 5)

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 24th day of November, 2025 This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The prayers are as under:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry into the complaint dated 07.10.2023 (Exhibit P1) submitted by the petitioner and to complete the same and submit a report within a period of six months.

(ii) To dispense with the filing of English translation of vernacular documents (iii) Issue such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

3. The grievance advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is the non consideration of Ext.P1 filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Today, the learned Government Pleader placed report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Idukki dated 15.11.2025, wherein in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 it has been reported as under:

“(3) The Director (2nd Respondent) sent this complaint to the Dy Supdt of Police, VACB, Idukki vide No CPSP -3-42902/2023/DVACB on 10/10/2023 for verification. On verification, it was revealed that irregularities were found by the concurrent auditor in the audit conducted at Malanadu Service Co-operative Bank, Vagamon for the years 2021-22 and 2022-23 and the audit report has been submitted to the Idukki District Joint Registrar, General to take necessary legal action. Therefore, the Dy Supdt of Police, V&ACB, Idukki a report submitted before the Director Vigilance with a recommendation that the State Co-operative Registrar may be instructed to complete the procedures and take further action. Subsequently the Director (2nd Respondent) sent the same to the State Government of Kerala vide No CPSP-3-42902/23/DVACB on

25/11/2023 for further necessary action.

(4) It is respectfully submitted that on 04/12/2023 The Government of Kerala sent a letter No.Vigi- B2/414/2023-Vigi to the Co-operative Department with the direction to provide the file along with the appropriate recommendation if it is found that action is required through the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau on the allegations in the complaint.”

4. In view of the report, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner fairly submitted that by directing disposal of Ext.P1 by the department within a time limit, this writ petition may be disposed of. The learned Government Pleader also is not opposed the said prayer.

5. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 forwarded and pass appropriate order therein, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner has any more grievance subsisting, he is at liberty to approach this Court again.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top