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) 53520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
XAVIER DAS N – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26320 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ, KUM.THULASI K. RAJ, SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY, SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER SPL GP – RAJESH A., SR GP – REKHA S.

Court upholds duty to investigate per constitutional provisions, ensuring fairness.

Headnote:The judgment analyses the legal obligations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the petitioners seeking a vigilance enquiry as related in Ext.P2. The Court finds the Government Pleader raised no objection for the requested inquiry. The Court allows the petition directing the 2nd respondent to conclude the enquiry recommended in Ext.P2 within three months while ensuring fairness in the process. The final ruling states this writ petition stands allowed.

Table of Content
1. court mandates enquiry into complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. government pleader's lack of objection noted. (Para 4)
3. court allows petition with direct orders. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of November, 2025 This writ petition (civil) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking the following prayers:

i) To declare that the respondents are duty bound to take further action on Ext.P2 and to conduct a vigilance enquiry in light of the observations in the said report.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take further action on Ext.P2 report in light of the observations therein.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 to 7 to conduct a vigilance enquiry in light of the observations in Ext.P2 report.

iv) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for under the facts and circumstances of the case;

v) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

2. Heard both sides, in detail. Perused the relevant records.

3. The short relief that has been canvased by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to conduct an enquiry by the Vigilance Wing under the Revenue Department as regards to the matters mentioned in Ext.P2, whereby the Deputy Superintendent of Police as on 11.04.2023 found that such an enquiry might be necessary in terms of the finding in Ext.P2.

4. Insofar as the short prayer sought for by the petitioners is concerned, no objection raised by the learned Government Pleader.

5. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed and there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to enquire the matter dealt in Ext.P2 as recommended and conclude the enquiry, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is ordered further that, while conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall provide an opportunity to the petitioners also to submit their versions to conclude the enquiry in a fair manner.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed as indicated above, with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if their grievance any remains to be addressed, hereafter.

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