Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Prof. S.K. Bhalla vs State Of J&K; And Ors. on 7 May, 2018

           HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU


OWP No. 1052/2013
MP Nos. 01/2017, 1457/2013 & 1746/2014
                                                          Date of Order:- 07.05.2018

Prof. S.K. Bhalla                   Vs.                   State of J&K and ors.

Coram:
               Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Judge
Appearing counsel:
For petitioner (s)     : Mr. S.S Ahmed, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)      : Mrs. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Dy. A.G. i/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No Press/Media?

ii/     Whether to be reported in                Yes/No
        Digest/Journal?

1. In this petition, the petitioner-Prof. S.K Bhalla has raised the issue of misuse of Government Vehicles by the then Deputy Chief Minister of the State, Sh. Tara Chand and his personal staff. The petitioner claims to have received information in response to his application moved under J&K Right to Information Act, 2009. It is submitted that as per the information supplied at the relevant point of time, the then Deputy Chief Minister was exercising administrative control over the following departments:-

(i) Housing and Urban Development Department, J&K Government.

                       (ii)    Jammu Municipal Corporation.
                       (iii)   J&K State Motor Garages.
                       (iv)    J&K Housing Board.
                       (v)     Jammu Development Authority.
                       (vi)    Director Urban Local Bodies, Jammu.
                       (vii) Srinagar Development Authority.

(viii) Srinagar Municipal Corporation.

(ix) Director Urban Local Bodies, Kashmir.

(x) Lakes and Waterways Development Authority, Srinagar.

(xi) IGP, Security Headquarters, J&K.

2. The petitioner has claimed that as per the information made available to him, the then Deputy Chief Minister had been requisitioning vehicles from various departments and autonomous institutions under his administrative control and acting contrary to his entitlement, was also getting POL issued to more than 20 vehicles from Jammu Municipal Corporation in violation of spirit of Government Order No. 1123-GAD of 1997 dated 11.07.1997. The petitioner has given details of the vehicles which obtained POL from Jammu Municipal Corporation on the written instructions of the personal staff of the then Deputy Chief Minister. On the basis of the information and inputs received by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking inter-alia following reliefs:-

MANDAMUS:-

(i) Commanding the respondents to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the direct supervision of respondent No. 4 comprising of officers having impeccable integrity in order to probe the petitioner's complaint dated 14-09-2012 directed against the Deputy Chief Minister of the State and his Personal Staff/Section regarding the double drawl of POL so that confidence is instilled in the fairness/impartially of the probe.

(ii) Commanding the respondents 4 to 6 finalize the preliminary enquiry/verification expeditiously into the complaint of the petitioner dated 14-09-2012 against the Deputy Chief Minister of J&K State and his Personal Staff/Section with regard to the double drawl of Petrol Oil Lubricants (POL).

(iii) Commanding the respondents 4 to 6 to submit before this Hon'ble Court the status/progress reports of enquiry/investigation on weekly basis so that the preliminary enquiry gets culminated with utmost promptitude.

AND With a further prayer to this Hon'ble Court to monitor the entire preliminary enquiry/investigation till its completion and filing of charge sheet against the accused in the competent court of law.

AND Writ of certiorari seeking the quashment of order dated 22-07-2013 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Jammu to the extent the SVO has been granted a further period of four months for completion of the verification/preliminary enquiry when the SVO has been allowed numerous opportunities to finalize the enquiry.

Prayer for grant of any other interim or final relief as may be deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

3. Taking cognizance of the matter, this Court vide its order dated 25.07.2013 called upon respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to appear in person along with the case diary. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 appeared along with the record and divulged that the State Vigilance Organization had undertaken the process of enquiry in the matter of misuse of vehicles by the Staff of the then Deputy Chief Minister of the State. Thereafter, from time to time, the directions were issued to file Status reports in the matter.

4. From perusal of the orders passed from time to time, it is apparent that this Court, in a way, has been monitoring the status of enquiries against the delinquent. From perusal of record of this petition, it also transpires that during the pendency of this petition, MP No. 01/2015 was filed which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 07.07.2015 directing the General Administration Department to take appropriate action in regard to initiation of departmental action and affecting recoveries from various delinquent officers. Thereafter, in response to the orders passed by this Court from time to time, several status reports have been filed.

5. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the fact that the Court has been monitoring the enquiries against the delinquent officers who have been found prima-facie guilty of abusing the official position and causing loss to the public exchequer, the respondents have been going slow in the matter.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that the issues raised by the petitioner are in public interest. The directions issued OWP No. 1052/2013 Page 3 of 4 by this Court have also gone beyond what was prayed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition.

7. Be that as it may, the Court has taken cognizance of the information placed on record by the petitioner and issued directions from time to time in the matter. Since the public interest element in the matter is involved as such, the petition deserves to be treated as public interest litigation. The registry is directed to place the matter before the Lord Chief Justice for taking appropriate decision in the matter.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu 07.05.2018 Tarun The judgment is pronounced be me in terms of Rule 138(3) of J&K High Court Rules, 1999.

(Tashi Rabstan) Judge OWP No. 1052/2013 Page 4 of 4