A writ of mandamus was issued to ensure timely decision-making on a request for investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2025 This Writ Petition (Crl.) has been filed by one A.V.Rajan and the prayers herein are as under: “i). Call for the records leading to Exts.P1 to P3 from the respondents;

ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, directions or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give sanction to the respondents 4 and 7 to conduct preliminary investigation and sanction to prosecution of the accused persons referred in Ext.P1 complaint as required under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act as sought for in CPSP-3-43296/DVACB as expeditiously as possible within a limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

iii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, directions or order directing the respondents 5 and 6 to conduct and complete enquiry as sought for in Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible within a limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

iv). Exempt the petitioner to produce the English translation of documents in vernacular language;

v). Such other relief that this Honorable court may deem fit and proper to render justice to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala representing the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau as well as the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 8^th respondent.

3. In this case, as per Ext.P1 complaint dated

11.03.2024, the petitioner filed a petition before the Principal Director, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging that there is corruption in the construction work carried out by Rajakkad Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that he received letters from the Principal Director, Local Self Government Department, and from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Idukki, informing him that his complaint had been forwarded to the Director, VACB. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no effective action has been taken thereafter.

4. The learned Government Pleader placed a letter dated 28.11.2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Director, VACB, stating that, in compliance with the direction of this Court, the complaint has been forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home and Vigilance, and that the said authority is presently considering the petition with a view to decide whether approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 2018’ hereinafter), is required to proceed with the enquiry on the complaint filed by the petitioner.

5. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 8^th respondent, who has filed a detailed counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit along with Exts.R8(a) to R8(z), submitted that the allegations in the complaint are wholly false. It is further submitted that the Panchayat building, which was in a dilapidated condition, was demolished after obtaining permission from the competent authority, and that the construction of a new building has been progressing as per the procedure of law.

According to the learned Standing Counsel, all actions taken are within the statutory limits and no element of corruption is involved as alleged. Therefore, this petition is absolutely unwarranted and is liable to be dismissed.

6. On scanning the dispute, it could be gathered that the petitioner is aggrieved by the non- consideration of Ext.P3 letter issued by the 5^th respondent. As per the letter dated 28.11.2025, which was placed after the issuance of the interim order on 21.11.2025 by this Court, the complaint filed by the petitioner is under consideration by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home and Vigilance, in compliance with Section 17A (b) of the PC Act, 2018. T