Kerala High Court quashes complaint alleging corruption in fixing fair value of land of Former Chief Secretary's wife

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the decision of a special court which declined to order a probe into allegations that the fair value of land belonging to wife of the former Chief Secretary, EK Bharat Bhushan was reduced illegally (Vidya Sangeeth v MS Jaya)..Single judge Justice R Narayana Pisharadi dismissed the petition as it found that the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur had taken a reasonable view in finding no criminal conduct by the respondents.Justice Pisharadi also observed that mere expeditious action in favour of a person cannot be inferred as abuse of power, even though ordinary citizens cannot expect such quick action from public servants. "Merely because prompt and speedy action was taken on the appeal filed by the fourth accused, abuse or misuse of official position or power by them cannot be inferred. It may be true that the fourth accused, being the wife of the Chief Secretary of the State, accused 1 to 3, who were public servants under him, were keen to ensure that the appeal filed by the fourth accused was disposed of immediately without any delay. It is also true that an ordinary citizen could not expect such quick action from the public servants. However, these circumstances are not sufficient to infer any act of criminal misconduct on their part," the Court said..Pertinently, the Court also reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is to ensure that subordinate courts function within the bounds of their jurisdiction and cannot be sought to be invoked in this manner, as an appeal in disguise. "When a subordinate court assumed jurisdiction it does not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have or when the jurisdiction has been exercised by it in a manner not permitted by law, resulting in failure of justice or grave injustice, the High Court may interfere in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction vested with the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be sought to be invoked or exercised 'in the cloak of an appeal in disguise," the order stated..The Court issued the order on a petition filed by a Member of the District Panchayat, Thrissur seeking to quash the order of the special court and to order an investigation into the fair value fixing of land belonging to the fourth respondent, one Ranjana Bharat Bhushan, wife of the former Chief Secretary..The petitioner had filed complaint in public interest at the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code..The case of the petitioner was that Bhushan had filed an appeal before the District Collector for reducing the fair value of the land owned by her. The Additional District Magistrate conducted an enquiry and obtained a report in favour of Bhushan from the Village Officer. Accordingly the fair value of land was reduced.It is alleged by the petitioner that the fair value was reduced arbitrarily and is the outcome of the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and it resulted in undue pecuniary advantage.The Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted a report before the special court stating that the allegations against the accused in the complaint were baseless. Therefore, the special court found that there were no sufficient reasons to reject the preliminary enquiry report and to order investigation. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court..The High Court observed that as per the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act, the District Collector, the Additional District Magistrate and the Village officer, all acted in accordance with the law.The Court also concurred with the observation of the special court that the administrative authorities or quasi-judicial authorities cannot be expected to pass a detailed order in such matters as courts usually do.Pertinently, the Court also held that the special court had no authority to sit in appeal of the correctness or otherwise of the order reducing fair value of land. "The jurisdiction of the Special Court was limited to examine the question whether, prima facie, any criminal misconduct was committed by the public servants concerned," the order stated..The Court found no merit in the arguments of the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the petition. [Read Order]