Probe Advocate- General's office lapses: Kerala High Court
Kochi: Kerala High Court on Friday rapped the Advocate- General's office for the second time in a fortnight and asked Chief Secretary Jiji Thomson to probe the lapses by AG K.T. Dandapani’s office in the conduct of cases and file a report directly to the Registrar-General.
Justice Alexander Thomas made it clear that the Chief Secretary should not take any advice from superior officers and file the report in two weeks. Meanwhile, AG's son, Millu Dandapani, appearing for a key accused, relinquished the vakalat.
The court was considering a batch of petitions involving revenue officials at Perino-gme village office and Payyannur land tribunal officer regarding a Vigilance case registered against them for creating bogus certificates to grab five acres of land. The court on several occasions had asked the state to reply to a specific query made by it.
“It is really agonising for this court to see the manner in which litigation is being conducted in the case. The court as early as on June 4 had alerted the government to take care and protect the interest of the state so that a stay order should not be granted. The court observed that in the event of the government authorities showing such apathy, it could only proceed with the materials or in the extreme event it would appoint an amicus curie to assist the court so as to take care of the interests of the state“
The Chief Secretary shall conduct an inquiry as to how this mishap had happened and as to how repeated attempts of this court to secure instructions from the government had failed, it said.
In the morning session at 12.30 p.m., a senior government pleader attached to the Director-General of Prosecutions office informed the court that all the details sought by it had been furnished in the affidavit. But the court found that the question whether the government order was applicable in the case remained unanswered.
It later asked the Director- General of Prosecution to appear before it. It heavily criticised the DGP and asked his explanation for the delay. The court observed that the act of the government amounted to contempt.