Transport Minister Thomas Chandy appears to have been ill-advised in filing a writ petition in the Kerala High Court against the Alappuzha District Collector’s report on the allegations of land law violations against him.
One question that CPI leaders raised during their discussions with their CPI(M) counterparts and at the LDF State committee was how a Minister who had filed a case against the government that he is part of could continue in office and discharge his constitutionally mandated responsibilities after having challenged a government action in a court of law.
The District Collector is the representative of the government in the district and the person who is duty-bounded to look into violation of laws, specifically those relating to land, and ensure registration of FIR whenever a cognisable offence is brought to his/her notice.
What the Collector had done was to examine the allegations brought to her notice and prepare a report on it and submit it to the Revenue Department. Thus, her report is the government’s document and for a Minister to challenge it in a court of law would raise serious questions of constitutionality.
Lalita Kumari case
The Supreme Court had, in the Lalita Kumari case, laid down stringent norms for registration of FIRs whenever an officer learns about a cognisable offence. In the event of the officer not taking steps for registration of FIR, the officer concerned would have to face criminal prosecution.
Violation of the Land Conservancy Act is a cognisable offence that called for registration of an FIR. What the District Collector’s report dealt with was the way the Land Conservancy Act was violated and how the land assigned to the landless for construction of houses were purchased for development of his resort. That being the case, the Minister’s writ petition before the High Court could well invite adverse observations from the court, the CPI leaders said.
