Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunder Singh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 18 November, 2022
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 1659 of 2021
Decided on: 18.11.2022
.
Sunder Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
.............................................................................................
Coram
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner
For the respondents
r :
:
toMr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate.
Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents
No.1 to 4.
Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate,
vice Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for
respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J (Oral)
The case of the petitioner is that he remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Syri, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. during the years 1978 to 2000 and 2011 to 2016. In his capacity as Pradhan, he received various complaints regarding the affairs of the said Gram Panchayat. On 27.10.2014, he requested respondent No.3 to conduct special audit of the Gram Panchayat Syri, for the period 2006 to 2010.
He preferred a complaint to the Superintendent of Police (CBI), Shimla on 25.10.2018 for taking action in alleged large scale illegalities & 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS 2irregularities, criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of Panchyat funds by the wrong-doers. But nothing was done in the matter, .
therefore, petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to take action on his complaint dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) and to carry out investigation in the complaint keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The substantive reliefs prayed by the petitioner run as under:-
"i. To direct the respondents to take action upon the complaint Annexure P-5 and to lodge FIR against respondent No.5 and 6 under relevant provision of law. ii.
r To direct Vigilance Department of Police to make investigation keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
iii. To pass an order for the time bound investigation of the case and to monitor the investigation of the same case."
2(i) Respondent No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complaint dated 25.10.2018 preferred by the petitioner against respondents No.5 & 6 to the Superintendent of Police (CBI) at Shimla was forwarded and received by the Vigilance Department. Upon examination of the same, the Vigilance Department forwarded it to the Director, Panchayati Raj Department, keeping in view the instructions contained in the State Government letter dated 15.06.1983 read with Rules 75 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Finance, Budget, Accounts, Audit, Works, Taxation and Allowances) Rules 2012 for taking appropriate action. In case on inquiry, the Panchayti Raj ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS 3 Department decides to register a case with the State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau then the said department could send the .
complaint in accordance with law under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2018.
Reply also states that a complaint against the petitioner was received in the Vigilance Department from the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 25.04.2016, requesting an investigation into various charges of misappropriation of funds by the petitioner while he was Pradhan Gram Panchayat Syri. At the request of Director Panchayati Raj made vide letter dated 18.10.2016, the Vigilance department conducted an inquiry into the complaint against the petitioner and an FIR No. 5/2019 dated 17.09.2019 was registered against him under Sections 420, 409, 120B IPC and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station, State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan.
2(ii) Separate reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1, 3 and 4. Gist of the reply is that appropriate action on the complaint moved by the petitioner has been taken by the respondents. The complaints alleging various irregularities and misappropriation of funds under Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA in short) executed in the concerned Gram Panchayat were forwarded to the Ombudsman (MGNREGA). The Ombudsman (MGNREGA) has announced its ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS 4 award on 21.6.2016 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is that the complaints made by .
the petitioner were duly adjudicated by the Ombudsman (MGNREGA) after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. In the award, the Ombudsman (MGNREGA) held that the allegations levelled in the complaints made by the petitioner were not established.
2(iii) Petitioner has filed rejoinder controverting the respondents' submissions.
3. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, it becomes obvious that the petition has worked itself out. Reliefs prayed for by the petitioner do not survive as on date as the respondents have already taken action on the complaints lodged by the petitioner. The Ombudsman (MGNREGA) has passed its award on petitioner's complaint.
The petitioner has filed an application being CMP No. 15997/2022 for amendment of the writ petition for challenging the award passed by the Ombudsman on 21.6.2016. The said application has been filed by the petitioner on 11.11.2022. The prayer made in the application cannot be allowed. The controversy raised in the writ petition pertained to alleged inaction on part of the respondents in taking cognizance of petitioner's complaint. Respondents have established that cognizance on petitioner's complaint was taken. The ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS 5 Ombudsman (MGNREGA) passed an award on 21.6.2016 finding no merit in petitioner's complaint. The relief prayed by the petitioner in the .
instant petition seeking direction to the respondents to take action on his complaint has become redundant. The petition is worked out.
Challenge to the Ombudsman's award dated 21.06.2016 now being sought to be introduced by seeking amendment of the writ petition is beyond the scope of pleadings in the writ petition. The application (CMP No.15997/2022), is therefore, dismissed.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of having become redundant. It goes without saying that it is for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law against the award dated passed on 21.6.2016 by Ombudsman (MGNREGA). All the rights and contentions of the parties in respect of award dated 21.6.2016 passed by the the Ombudsman (MGNREGA), are left open.
Pending miscellaneous application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge 18th November 2022(Rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2022 20:31:55 :::CIS