Article 226 courts cannot substitute their view for CVC’s vigilance assessment absent demonstrable perversity.

The petitioner’s wife and son were among the homebuyers in the “IRIDIA” project, proposed to be developed by M/s Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on land belonging to M/s Kaveri Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.

The petitioner alleged that, despite pending disputes and non-fulfilment of requisite pre-conditions, Indian Overseas Bank sanctioned and disbursed a term loan of ₹28.50 crore to the developer on 24 December 2013, indicating possible collusion and corruption by bank officials.

He lodged a complaint before the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”), which was closed by email dated 7 February 2025 without reasons.

The CVC subsequently explained that the complaint had been referred to the Chief Vigilance Officer of Indian Overseas Bank, whose Investigation Report found no vigilance angle; the complaint was therefore closed under the applicable complaint-handling guidelines.

During the writ proceedings, the Court examined the Investigation Report and found that it recorded the fulfilment of the conditions imposed by the bank before sanction of the loan.

Whether the CVC’s closure of the petitioner’s complaint without disclosing reasons in the email dated 7 February 2025 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the CVC was justified in treating the complaint as not involving corruption or any irregular act having a vigilance angle, after considering the Investigation Report of the bank’s CVO.

Whether the petitioner was entitled, in the present writ proceedings, to a copy of the Investigation Report relied upon for closing the complaint.

The Court applied the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that it cannot direct a specialised authority to adopt a different factual or administrative view unless the decision is perverse or otherwise legally unsustainable.

It further applied the Comprehensive Guidelines on Complaint Handling Mechanism, 2021, under which the CVC deals with complaints concerning corruption and irregular acts involving a vigilance angle.

The Court also treated the Investigation Report as an internal document and held that any request for its disclosure must be pursued in accordance with law.

Although the closure email itself did not contain reasons, the Court examined the Investigation Report that formed the basis of the CVC’s decision.

The Report detailed the conditions imposed by the bank and recorded the sanctioning authority’s satisfaction that those conditions had been fulfilled.

In light of that material, the CVC concluded that the complaint did not disclose corruption or an irregular act having a vigilance angle, which fell within its administrative domain under the 2021 Guidelines.

The Court held that it could not reassess that determination or compel the CVC to take a different view in the absence of demonstrable perversity.

Since the complaint had been considered on the basis of the Investigation Report and no such perversity was established, judicial interference was unwarranted.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

The Court noted that the Investigation Report was an internal document and left it open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to obtain it in accordance with law.