Delhi High Court - Orders
Surendra Santoshi vs Central Vigilance Commission Anr on 13 January, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:15.01.2021
09:09:28
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 467/2021
SURENDRA SANTOSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arun Kasi, Advocate.
(M-8882197957)
versus
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal & Mr. Girish
Pandey, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI/R-2.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 13.01.2021
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking directions for production of the enquiry report dated 30th December, 2014, submitted by the Chief Vigilance Officer (hereinafter 'CVO'), National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter 'NBCC') before the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter 'CVC'), on a complaint filed by the Petitioner.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he had made various allegations of malpractice and corruption within the NBCC and a complaint was filed by him before the NBCC. The said complaint resulted in an enquiry by the CVO of the NBCC. The Petitioner had also filed writ petitions seeking an enquiry earlier, however, the same were rejected due to various reasons. After the dismissal of the first two writ petitions, another complaint was filed on 27th December, 2013. Pursuant to the said complaint, the factual report was called for from the CVO on 3rd March, 2014. The said report was submitted by the CVO, NBCC to the CVC.
4. The Petitioner moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter 'RTI Act') on 17th July, 2015, seeking a copy of the said report, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:14.01.2021 23:48 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:15.01.2021 09:09:28 which was however denied to the Petitioner. The reason given by the CVC for denying the Complaint was that the CVC had agreed with the CVO, NBCC for closure of the case and thus, the case file had been returned. However, in the reply to the application under the RTI Act, the following statement was made by the CVC:
"2. The File No.014/W&H/012 is currently under examination in the Commission. Hence, the CPIO is unable to provide the information sought by you."
5. Mr. Gonsalves, ld. Senior Counsel, submits that the report being under examination of the Commission, a copy of the same ought to be made available to the Petitioner, as the entire report was an outcome of the complaint made by the Petitioner.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Aggarwal, ld. counsel submits that it is possible that the CVC does not have a copy of the report and the file has been transmitted back to the NBCC.
7. Heard ld. counsels for the parties. After perusing the records, it is clear from the reply given on 10th December, 2020, by the Central Vigilance Commission, that the file is stated to be under examination of the CVC, and hence, this court is of the opinion that it would not be possible to accept the explanation that the file may not be with the CVC. Be that as it may, the enquiry and the report being a culmination of the Petitioner's complaint, the Petitioner ought to be supplied with a copy of the same by the CVC. If the CVC finds that it does not have a copy of the report on its record, it shall obtain the same from the CVO, NBCC and supply a copy within six weeks.
8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JANUARY 13, 2021 Rahul/Ak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:14.01.2021 23:48