Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Enamul Haque vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 28 February, 2014

Author: R. Banumathi

Bench: Chief Justice, Shree Chandrashekhar

                                     1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                   W.P. (PIL) No. 934 of 2012

   Enamul Haque...       ...   ...       ....           ....Petitioner

                         Vs.

   1.The State of Jharkhand
   2.The Principal Secretary, Welfare Department,
     Government of Jharkhand
   3.The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Tribal Co-operation
     Development Corporation Ltd.
   4.The Executive Officer, Jharkhand State Tribal Co-operation
     Development Corporation Ltd.
   5.Director General (Vigilance).
   6.The Director General of Police, Jharkhand
   7.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi
   8.The Officer-in-Charge, Bariatu Police Station
   9.The Officer-in-Charge, Ratu Police Station.
                        .... ...     ... ...  ...   Respondents
                              ------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR.
                   ------

   For the Petitioner:    Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
   For the State:         Mr. J.C to AAG
   For Res. No. 3 & 4:    Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.


                          ------                Dated 28th February, 2014


                   This 'Public Interest Litigation'         has been filed

       by the petitioner seeking direction upon 6th respondent-

       Director General of Police, Jharkhand to investigate into

       fraudulent disbursement of Tractor-Trailor and buses to the

       fake persons in connivance with the officers and politicians

       by forming co-operative under the self-employment income

       generation scheme between 2003 to 2008 without verifying

       their address, caste and income certificates and further for

       direction upon    respondent nos 7, 8 and 9 to submit the

       status report of the investigation in Bariatu P.S. Case No.
                           2

124 of 2011 dated 10.04.2011 and Ratu P.S. Case No. 29 of

2009 dated 21.02.2009.

2.          The National Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe Finance and Development Corporation has been

created by Government of India under the Indian Companies

Act, 1956 and the object of the Corporation is to provide

financial assistance to the members of Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled   Tribe    through    Channeling     Agency    to   be

nominated   by   the    State   Government.     The     National

Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation (in

short "NSFDC") and National Scheduled Tribe Finance

Development Corporation (in short "NSTFDC") introduced

Self Employment Scheme and Jharkhand State Tribal

Corporation Development Corporation has been nominated

as Channeling Agency for providing loans to the members of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe under the Scheme of

NSFDC and NSTFDC. As per the provisions of the said

scheme, the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe were required to submit Caste Certificate and Income

Certificate issued by the Circle Officer of the concerned

Circle and recommendation of the District Welfare Officers

of the concerned District and on their recommendation loans

are being granted to them for purchase of vehicles of their

choice. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 3

and 4 (the Managing Director and the Executive Officer of

Jharkhand    State     Tribal   Co-operation     Development

Corporation Ltd. respectively), it is stated that under the
                             3

scheme, the JSTCDC granted loans to 136 persons, 80

persons, 72 persons and 66 persons during years 2003-04,

2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively.

3.          The grievance of the petitioner is that above

loans were granted to the persons on fake certificates or

without   proper    Caste       and   Income   Certificates   and,

therefore, the petitioner seeks appropriate direction to

investigate into fraudulent disbursement of Tractor-Trailor

and buses to the fake persons in connivance with the

officers and politicians.

4.          We have heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar,

learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and 4 and

J.C to A.A.G for the State.

5.          In the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent-

Welfare Department of State of Jharkhand, it is stated that

on the basis of information submitted by the informant-Ram

Janam Vidhaka, a criminal case has been registered as

Bariatu P.S. Case No. 124 of 2011 dated 20.04.2011 under

Sections 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal

Code against named accused Vijay Ram, Son of Sukhdeo

Ram, Resident of Masmano, P.S. Chanhao, District: Ranchi

for cheating and fraudulently getting Tractor-Trailor. In the

counter affidavit, it is further stated that investigation of the

said Bariatu P.S. Case No. 124 of 2011 is still pending.

6.          In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of

respondent no. 2, dated 13.03.2013, it has been stated that
                                       4

            the allegations have been received in the Department and

            are being carefully examined and if any truth is found in the

            allegations, the Department will take action as per Rules.

            7.          So far as Ratu P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009 dated

            21.02.2009

registered under Section 307 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, which relates to alleged occurrence in which the petitioner is said to have been shot, is concerned, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that Final Form vide Final Form No. 196 of 2010 dated 31.11.2010 has already been submitted. It appears that the petitioner, who is the informant in that case (Ratu P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009) has not filed any protest petition.

7. This 'Public Interest Litigation' is disposed of with a direction to the respondent nos. 8 to complete the investigation at a early date, preferably within a period of six months. We direct the 7th respondent to monitor the investigation.

8. Respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to monitor the matter at his level and take appropriate action, if required.

9. So far as Ratu P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009 is concerned, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

(R. Banumathi, C.J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J) Alankar/-