The Hon’ble Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice V.G. Arun was hearing the Criminal Miscellaneous petition against the order of the Enquiry Commissioner.
Subsequently, the Hon’ble Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram while dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, V.S. Achyuthanathan, Former Chief Minister of Kerala held that the difference between the previous complaint and present complaint filed is that the present complaint filed contains more details which is also immaterial in the view of the settled legal position that an FIR need not be a compendium of all facts.
Following are the allegations filed by the petitioner in the instant case:
- In the year 2013-2014, respondent no. 2 in the instant case was the Chief Minister, and respondent no. 8 was constructing a shopping mall on the property possessed by respondent no. 6. At the time of the construction, there was a sewerage pumping in the main lane of Kerala. Likewise, the Water of Karela laid looked into the matter and directed respondent no. 6 to manage the sewage and refrain from pumping the same in the main lane of karela, the respondent was also asked to pay a fine.
- Further, respondent no. 6 with the assistance of respondent no. 2 and 5 shifted the sewerage lane to one side of respondent no. 6 property thereby affecting construction over a large area which enabled all the respondents to gain the pecuniary advantage.
- Moreover, the land over which the sewerage line was drawn is the Government land, which had vested with the Water Authority under Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. Respondents 6 and 7, by creating false documents, had reduced the property into their possession.
Likewise, after hearing the parties in the instant case the Hon’ble court noted that there is already a complaint filed with Lokayuktha before the previous complaint by the person on the same grounds and it was observed that the action of the accused will not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act since the Respondent Company had not gained any pecuniary advantage.
Therefore, the Hon’ble court in the instant W.P (C) No. 36735 of 2017 elaborate consideration of the allegations, found the claim of title by the Water Authority over the 6th respondent’s land to be unsustainable. And lastly, The Hon’ble Bench also remarked that the contention was based on Lalita Kumari versus. State of U.P. [(2014) 2 SCC 1] by the petitioner is inappropriate.