JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner who is the complainant in VC-06/15/SCT of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram and he seeks the following prayers: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to entrust the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to conduct a proper investigation on the petitioner's complaint as expeditiously as possible. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3 rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P7 representation as early as possible after affording an opportunity of being heard. iii. Petitioner also prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language. iv. Issue such other order or direction as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in this crime, even though the 6 th respondent was released on bail by imposing conditions, he had violated the conditions; therefore, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled on the said ground. Accordingly, the petitioner herein moved an application as Ext.P7 requesting the Investigating Officer to take necessary steps to cancel the bail granted to the 6 th respondent for the said reason. 4. According to the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent, the petitioner has no such vested right to seek cancellation of bail at the behest of the Investigating Officer and it is the discretion of the Investigating Officer to decide as to whether such a drastic step is warranted in a case, on finding prima facie that the bail conditions are violated. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent. 6. Thus, the questions arise for consideration are: 1) What is the legal remedy available to a complainant/de facto complainant when conditions of bail are found to be violated? 5. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent. 6. Thus, the questions arise for consideration are: 1) What is the legal remedy available to a complainant/de facto complainant when conditions of bail are found to be violated? 2) Can a complainant/de facto complainant compel the Investigating Officer to file an application for cancellation of bail pointing out violation of bail conditions? 3) Otherwise, how the grievance of the complainant/de facto complainant can be addressed? 7. It is a well settled legal position that the courts have the power to cancel bail when bail conditions are violated in an appropriate case, though cancellation of bail once granted is a harsh order. When a complainant/de facto complainant notices violation of bail conditions, he has two options. The first option is to bring the same to the Investigating Officer, so that the Investigating Officer can file an application, seeking cancellation of bail. But while exercising the said option, the complainant/de facto complainant cannot compel the Investigating Officer to do the same and it is the discretion and legal right of the Investigating Officer to opt the procedure for cancellation of bail and the Investigating Officer could very well ignore the request of the complainant/de facto complainant, if he believes that there is no violation of bail conditions, as pointed out by the complainant/de facto complainant. Coming to the 2 nd option available to the complainant/de facto complainant, he has a right to seek cancellation of bail before the court pointing out violation of bail conditions by the accused. In the matter of cancellation of bail for violation of conditions, the court has power to do the same in an appropriate case, if such a harsh order is inevitable, in the facts of a particular case either suo motu or acting on the application of the Investigating Officer or that of the complainant/de facto complainant, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused to explain his stand. 8. Reverting back, on appraisal of the matter in issue, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 6 th respondent violated bail conditions, warranting cancellation of bail, but the Investigating Officer did not act on the same. Therefore, the petitioner herein is at liberty to move an appropriate application before this Court and the same will be considered on merits, as per law. Therefore, the petitioner herein is at liberty to move an appropriate application before this Court and the same will be considered on merits, as per law. With the said liberty, this petition is disposed of.