Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand And Ors vs Jharkhand Against Corruption Through ... on 28 March, 2016
Author: D.N.Patel
Bench: D.N. Patel, Amitav K. Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 2359 of 2015
with
C.M.P. No. 46 of 2015
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur Distt. Ranchi
3. The Director General of Police (Vigilance), Jharkhand, Audrey
House, P.O. & P.S. Ranchi, Ranchi
4. The Inspector General (Vigilance), Jharkhand, Audrey House, P.O.
& P.S. Ranchi, Ranchi
... ... Petitioner/Review petitioner/Respondents
Versus
1. Jharkhand Against Corruption through its President Durga Oraon @
Munda, son of Dhadhu Oraon @Munda, Resident of Edalhatu,
Morabadi, P.O. Ranchi University P.S. Bariatu Dist Ranchi
... ... Opp.Party/Writ Petitioner
2. The Election Commission of India, through its Chief Election
Commissioner, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi
... ... Respondent/PerformaRespondent/Proforma Respondent
3. The Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, P.O. & P.S.
Lodhi Road, New Delhi
4. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, P.O.
& P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi
... ... Respondents/Opposite Party/Proforma Opposite Party
5. K.D. Singh, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, P.O. & P.S.
Rajyasabha Secretariat, New Delhi
6. Parimal Nathwani, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, P.O. & P.S.
Rajyasabha Secretariate, New Delhi
7. Uma Shankar Akela, MLA, Jharkhand Assembly, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi
8. Simon Marandi, MLA, Jharkhand Assembly, P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa,
Ranchi
9. Rajesh Ranjan, MLA, Jharkhand Assembly, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
Ranchi
10. Sawna Lakra, MLA, (Jharkhand Assembly, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
Ranchi
Respondents/Performa O.P./Performa O.P.
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr.Addl. A.G.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Sr. P.C.
Devanand Kumar, CGC
(For Union of India)
-----
th
07/Dated 28 March, 2016
Per D.N.Patel,J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred for restoration of Civil review No. 87 of 2013, which was preferred by the State and was dismissed by order of this court for non-compliance of Order dated 12th -2- November, 2014, as submitted by the Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State. It is surprising that the State has preferred the said review application for review of the order dated 28th January, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(PIL) No. 2002/2012.
2. This court has already dismissed Civil Review No. 51 of 2013 vide order dated 28th March, 2016, viz. Today.
The matter involves slow paced investigation in a horse trading case in connection with Rajya Sabha Election of the year 2010. The FIR was lodged by the Vigilance Department and since the investigation was progressing at a snails pace, W.P.(PIL) No. 2002 of 2012 was preferred with a prayer that the matter may be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The same was allowed by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 28th January, 2013 and in the said order there was observation that Vigilance Department was not vigilant enough and hence, the C.B.I. will carry out the investigation. There were also observations in Paragraph 14 to be read with para 22 of the order dated 28th January, 2013 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 2002 of 2012 to the effect that C.B.I. will also carry out investigation to find out as to whether the lethargic approach of the Vigilance Department is due to some nexus between the officials with the accused persons.
3. It further appears from the facts of the case that this court has not observed anything against any particular officer, but, a general observation was made against the lethargic approach of the investigation and in criminal jurisprudence, an approach too lethargic is known as conspiracy with the accused and therefore, observations were made by the Division Bench of this court that the C.B.I. will not only investigate in the horse trading case, but, also investigate as to whether any officer of the Government Department is involved in a conspiracy with the accused persons because investigation was progressing with a negative acceleration. Apprehension was made by the petitioner in the W.P.(PIL) No. 2002 of 2012 that this slow pace of investigation may be due to some conspiracy between the accused and officials of the department in question.
4. Learned Addl. Advocate General is unable to point out whether C.B.I. has completed the investigation or not.
-3-5. Counsel for the applicant in Civil Review No. 51 of 2013 is confident that the investigation carried out by the C.B.I. is over and chargesheet has also been filed.
6. We are surprised that a civil review has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand bearing Civil Review No. 87 of 2013 for the review of the aforesaid order dated 28th Jan., 2013 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 2002/2012.
It appears that few officers of the State of Jharkhand wants to save the accused persons and we do not find the approach of those officers of the State at all in good taste. The State is a perpetual entity. Government may come and Government may go. The State, which is a perpetual authority, should not have preferred Civil Review No. 87 of 2013 when its own department, viz. Vigilance Department was not vigilant enough and from 2010 to 2013 investigation of the case in question could not be completed by them.
7. Already a civil review preferred by the I.G., Vigilance bearing Civil Review No. 51 of 2013 has been dismissed today, viz. 28th March, 2016, by a detailed speaking order.
8. We see no reason to entertain this Civil Miscellaneous Petition preferred by the State and we are also not condoning the delay in preferring this Civil Miscellaneous Petition as prayed for in I.A. No. 2359 of 2015 as the reasons are not sufficient for condonation of delay.
9. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition as well as Interlocutory Application No. 2359 of 2015 both stand dismissed.
(D.N.Patel, J.) (Amitav K.Gupta, J.) s.m.