Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Alleging Large-Scale Corruption By State Cashew Board

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M, said that the petition was devoid of merits.

“We therefore perceived the petitioner completely devoid and we are not inclined to examine the issue at the behest of such petitioner. Keeping the cause open, we dispose of this petition. It is out of indulgence that we have not imposed a cost on the petitioner for this misadventure,” the bench orally observed.

In the plea, the petitioner stated that even though he had submitted a complaint (Exhibit P8) before Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), the same has not yet been considered.

The PIL prayed for a direction to Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to consider his complaint within a time frame fixed by the Court and to conduct a vigilance inquiry into the fraud. The plea also prayed for a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action against the suppliers who supplied inferior quality cashew.

The Court noted that the petition is filed by an advocate based solely on a correspondent addressed by the Director of Cashew Corporation to the Authority.

It was further observed that the petitioner failed to file the petition with the Directors as the co-petitioner even though a communication issued by the Director to the petitioner has specifically asked the petitioner to assist him as an advocate.

“The Communication issued by the Director to the petitioner also calls upon the petitioner to assist as an advocate. Yet without making these to director's as co-petitioner's, this petition came to be filed, based on their information,” the bench observed.

The bench further observed that the Directors who were impleaded as additional respondents as per the direction of the Court have not taken any legal actions or initiated any legal proceedings after the third respondent have failed to take any action after convening a meeting based on the complaint of the Directors.

The Court thus disposed of the petition, keeping the cause open.

Case Title: Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors.

Case No: WP(PIL) 109 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661

Counsel for the Petitioner: Jomy K Jose, Muhammed Anshif T K

Counsel for Respondent: Merlin Mathew, Vipin P Varghese, Adarsh Mathew, Anirudh G Kamath, Agustho Morbert, Megha Madhavan, T B Hood, M Isha, Ahammed Ameen A F, Vipin P Varghese