CASE TITLE – Vinod Mathew versus the Union of India & Ors.
CASE NUMBER – WP(C) NO. 17179 OF 2024
DATED ON – 20.05.2024
QUORUM – JUSTICE GOPINATH P. & JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FACTS OF THE CASE
“The prayers sought in this Writ Petition, filed as a public interest litigation, are as follows:
- To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order, or direction directing respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to consider and take action on Ext.P3 representation as per law within a time limit fixed by the Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.
- To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order, or direction directing respondents Nos. 1, 6, and 7 to consider and take action on Ext.P5 representation as per law within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.
- Such other writ, orders, or directions deemed fit on facts and in the interest of justice.”
The petitioner claims that a money heist occurred within the jurisdiction of Kodakara Police Station, and that Crime No.146 of 2021, dated 07.04.2021, has been registered in that station. According to the petitioner, because the heist involves hawala and money laundering with political overtones, he has filed Ext.P3 representation dated 24.04.2024 and Ext.P5 representation dated 28.04.2024 with the relevant respondents, seeking the registration of a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner expresses disappointment that the concerned respondents have taken no action on his representations. Given the nature of the crime, which he believes has ramifications for the nation’s economic security, he has filed this Writ Petitions, seeking the aforementioned prayers.
ISSUES
Whether the petitioner has sufficient standing to maintain the Writ Petition and whether the petition serves a genuine public interest or is politically motivated.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER
The petitioner alleges that the heist has significant ramifications for national economic security. Representations seeking action under the 2002 Act were made but were not acted upon, leading to the Writ Petition. The petitioner is citing, Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera v. Union of India, for a flexible approach to locus standi in public interest litigations.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
Respondents 2 and 3 have in their statement, challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to prefer the Writ Petition in a matter which essentially has criminal law implications. The statement also reveals that based on FIR No.146 of 2021 dated 07.04.2021 of Kodakara Police Station and the Final Report filed therein by the Police, an ECIR/KCZO/11/2023 dated 30.01.2023 has been registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Act, 2002 and that the matter is under active investigation. It has been stated therein that several persons have been questioned and their statements recorded. That effective steps are being presently undertaken by the Enforcement Directorate to ascertain the proceeds of crime including the money trail and that meticulous investigation is required in cases of such nature to find out the money trail, the proceeds of the crime and the persons involved in the money laundering case, are also pointed out by respondents 2 and 3 in their statement. The Enforcement Directorate has through the said statement sought dismissal of the Writ Petition at the very threshold on the ground of maintainability and lack of locus standi in the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 5 have in their statement contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and that no public interest is involved in the matter. It is alleged by them therein that the Writ Petition has been filed with political interest and ulterior motives by the petitioner who is admittedly the State President of a political party. It is also averred therein that Ext.P2 Final Report clearly reveals that the State Police has completed the investigation and has filed the Final Report before the jurisdictional Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the matter. Respondents 1 and 5 thus seek dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground that a public interest litigation is not maintainable in a criminal matter and that the petitioner is only a stranger who is in no way connected with the alleged crime.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’able High Court of Kerala finds that the petitioner has failed to reveal any locus standi to prefer or maintain the above Writ Petition as a public interest litigation. The objections raised by the respondents in their statements regarding lack of locus standi in the petitioner has legal merit and are accordingly accepted and upheld. The court is convinced that even if we were to hold that the Writ Petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, the reliefs sought for cannot be granted. Ext.P3 representation is addressed to officials of the Enforcement Directorate seeking registration of a case under the Act, 2002, against a named individual. There is also a prayer in Ext.P3 that the named individual and his associates should be arrested. The prayer for consideration of Ext.P3 by the competent authority under the 2002 Act is based on a misconception of the scope of the 2002 Act. After analysing the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the court made it clear that the Enforcement Directorate is not an investigating agency stricto sensu. The command and mandate of the Enforcement Directorate under the 2002 Act is to ensure that no person benefits from the proceeds of crime derived out of the commission of a scheduled offence and to see that such property is confiscated to the State. Therefore, in the facts of this case there cannot be any direction issued to consider Ext.P3 which has been filed with a prayer to register a case and arrest certain individuals for that is not the mandate of the Enforcement Directorate. Moreover, the statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 filed in this case indicates that the Enforcement Directorate has registered an ECIR/KCZO/11/23 in the above matter and the same is being enquired into as well. Thus the court sees no reason to direct the consideration of Ext.P3. The second relief sought in the Writ Petition is for Ext.P5 representation, which requests action under Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act of 2008 (NIA Act). Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008, states that the process begins with the filing of a FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for an offence listed in the Schedule to the NIA Act, 2008. A review of the Ext.P2 Final Report reveals that no offences listed in the Schedule to the NIA Act, 2008, were committed. The petitioner has incorrectly invoked Section 6, as the preliminary requirements for its application—namely, the commission of a scheduled offence and the filing of a FIR—have not been met. Hence for the above mentioned reasons the writ is dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
