2020 (8) TMI 484 - HC - GST

Direction to Kerala Lok Ayukta to consider Exhibit P1 complaint - declaration that Exhibit P1 complaint as not maintainable under Section 157 (2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Perusal of the statement of facts filed in support of the writ petition shows that after taking cognizance of the complaint, there was 20 postings and that adjudication of the complaint remains at the evidence stage. Complaint has been enquired and it is at the evidence stage - Though reliance has been made on Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017 for a declaration that Ext.P1 complaint is not maintainable. We are not inclined to grant the third relief as Lok Ayukta has already taken cognizance of the complaint and it is at the evidence stage. For the above said reasons, complaint also cannot be quashed. Writ of certiorari also cannot be granted as prayed for. The only relief that remains to be considered is whether direction can be issued to Kerala Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram/respondent No.1 to dispose of Ext.P1 complaint expeditiously - Judicial notice can be taken that there are several complaints pending before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram. The present complaint filed in January, 2018 and numbered as 440 of 2018. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of Exhibit P1 complaint made against the Deputy Commissioner of State Goods and Services Department.
2. Mandamus directing the Kerala Lok Ayukta to consider Exhibit P1 complaint.
3. Declaration of Exhibit P1 complaint as not maintainable under Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Exhibit P1 complaint made by M/s. Bhima Enterprises before the Lok Ayukta. The petitioner also requested a mandamus for the Lok Ayukta to consider the complaint in accordance with the law. The court noted that the Lok Ayukta had already taken cognizance of the complaint and it was at the evidence stage. The court declined to quash the complaint or grant the writ of certiorari. The only relief considered was whether a direction could be issued to dispose of the complaint promptly.

2. The petitioner contended that the Exhibit P1 complaint was not maintainable under Section 157(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Act, 2017. However, the court refused to grant this declaration as the Lok Ayukta had already taken cognizance of the complaint. The court emphasized that the complaint could not be quashed, and the writ of certiorari could not be granted. The court highlighted that the only remaining consideration was expeditious disposal of the complaint by the Lok Ayukta.

3. The court observed that there were numerous pending complaints before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, including the one filed in January 2018 as complaint number 440 of 2018. The court suggested that if the petitioner was concerned about the delay in resolving the complaint, they could approach the Lok Ayukta for a quicker resolution instead of seeking relief through the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition in light of the circumstances discussed in the judgment.