Jharkhand High Court
Jitender Kumar Jiwan vs Labour on 11 December, 2017
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (PIL) No. 2556 of 2016
Jitender Kumar 'Jiwan' ..... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Department of Labour, Training
& Employment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Director Industrial Training Institute,
Department of Labour, Training & Employment,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. Union of India
6. Director General Labour, Employment & Training
Govt. of India, New Delhi
7. The Additional Director General, the Anti Corruption
Bureau, Ranchi
8. Raj Palliwal, Hon'ble Minister, Govt. of Jharkhand
Ranchi
9. Sashi Bhushan Prasad, Deputy Director cumJoint
Director, Industrial Training Institute, Jharkhand, Ranchi
10. Devender Prasad, PrincipalcumExamination
Controller, Ranchi
11. Budh Deo Thakur, Deputy DirectorcumJoint
Director, Industrial Training Institute, Ranchi
12. Bhushan Kumar, Instructor, Assistant Director
Office, Dist East Singhbhum
13. Yogendra Prasad, Assistant Director (training),
Industrial Institute, Ranchi ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B.MANGALMURTI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, A.A.G
7/11.12.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and RespondentState.
Petitioner has sought to raise a grievance in relation to setting up of 57 new Government Industrial Training Institute and alleges act of fraud, nepotism and misappropriation of public money by certain respondents.
The respondentState has filed counter affidavit sworn by Under Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment & Training.
Before entering into the merits of the contention of the parties, we were confronted with the credential of the petitioner himself as reflected in the statements made at paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the counter affidavit of the State.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner sought for and was allowed time to seek instructions specifically in relation to the allegation relating to his credential. A reply has been filed thereafter on 8th December, 2017. There are two specific instances of criminal cases pending against the petitioner one being Complaint Case no. 2499/2015, filed by one Company M/s. S N L Bearing Limited, the other being G. R. Case No. 1045 of 2014, filed by one Renu Kumari under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. First one is said to be instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 196, 197 and 198 of the Indian Penal Code and pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. Petitioner, in his reply, is silent about the allegation relating to Complaint case no. 2499/2015, while in respect of G. R. Case no. 1045 of 2014, he has enclosed the statements made by one Renu Kumari before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 13th September, 2017 (AnnexureC1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has clearly stated that there are no outstanding dues against the accusedpetitioner and she does not intend to prosecute the case further. However, no formal order of acquittal or discharge has been brought on record in respect of the said case either.
In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the credentials of the petitioner do not inspire confidence to allow him to raise a cause in public interest in the present matter. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed on that count.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) (B.B.Mangalmurti,J) jk