Wp(C)/32950/2022 Of S.sarath v. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 18 DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944WP(C) NO. 32950 OF 2022 PETITIONER: S.SARATHAGED 51 YEARSS/O. K. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, HOUSE NO. 307, SREEVATSAM, PTP NAGAR, PTP NAGAR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695038.BY ADVS.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)ARUN TOM PHILIP RESPONDENTS: 1THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKERALA, AAYKAR BHAVAN, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682018.2THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX[VIG.] , CHENNAI, ANNEX BUILDING, 8TH FLOOR, 121, MG ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600034. OTHER PRESENT: SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated this the 18[th] day of October, 2022 The petitioner is working as an Income Tax Officer at Alappuzha. He is an accused in two Sessions Cases pendingbefore the Special Court (CBI), Thiruvananthapuram and oneCalender Case pending before the Judicial First ClassMagistrate-II, Nedumangad. The petitioner has to accompanyhis daughter to the UAE in connection with her studies.Therefore, he applied for permission to travel abroad and thecourts granted permission for renewal of the petitioner'spassport. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submittedrequests for vigilance clearance and NOC before therespondents. As no action was forthcoming on the requests,petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 31760 of2022. By Ext. P9, the writ petition was disposed of directingthe 2[nd] respondent to consider petitioner's request and take adecision thereon within one week. 2. This writ petition is filed pointing out that, evenbefore Ext.P9 judgment was rendered, the 2[nd] respondent had rejected the petitioner's request for vigilance clearance andthe 1[st] respondent had granted approval for travelling abroadfrom 01.11.2022 to 10.11.2022. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, had the above crucial aspect been brought to the notice of thisCourt at the appropriate stage, this Court could have issuedpositive directions. It is submitted that if vigilance clearance isnot granted, the petitioner will not be able to accompany hisdaughter, who is going abroad for pursuing her studies.Attention is drawn to Ext. P8 Office Memorandum to contendthat, merely because cases are pending before the criminalcourt and final report has been framed, vigilance clearanceneed not be refused. 4. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits that, in the wake of Ext. P8 OM, the 2[nd] respondent isleft with no alternative other than reject to the application forvigilance clearance. 5. Having perused Ext. P8 OM, I am unable to find anyabsolute interdiction against issuance of vigilance clearance certificate if final report is filed in a case in which the applicantis an accused. The OM only says that vigilance clearance canbe withheld in cases where charge has been filed in court bythe investigating agency. In the instant case, the 1[st]respondent has already granted permission to the petitioner totravel abroad for ten days. Being so, denial of vigilanceclearance based on Ext. P8 is not justified. The writ petition is hence disposed of, directing the 2[nd] respondent to issue vigilance clearance certificate to thepetitioner immediately on production of a copy of thisjudgment. Once vigilance clearance certificate is issued, it isfor the 1[st] respondent to issue the no-objection certificateapplied for. Ordered accordingly. Sd/-V.G.ARUNJUDGE