Jharkhand High Court
Veerendra Kumar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018
------
Veerendra Kumar Ram, aged about 52 years, S/o Sri Genda Ram, resident of CE-1, Road No.- 7, C.H. Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, PO+PS- Bistupur, Dist- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Office of Hon'ble Lokayukta, Jharkhand at Ranchi through its Secretary, having office at Booty More, PO- Morabadi, PS- Bariatu, District- Ranchi.
3. Rajiv Dubey, aged about 46 years, S/o Sri Tirth Raj Dubey, R/o- H-23, Technology Employees Co-operative House Construction Society Limited, Adityapur- 2, PS- RIT Thana, PO- Adityapur, Dist-
Saraikella Kharsawan ... Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG I A Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Lokayukta, Jharkhand in Case No.01/Lok (Water Resource Department) 01/2018 wherein direction has been issued to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner on the ground that the 1 W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018 same has been passed in an arbitrary manner; contrary to the provisions of Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001. Further prayer has been made to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent No.2 to immediately close and drop the entire proceeding in connection with the said case and consequential reliefs.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.3 was one of the unsuccessful bidder of the tender of the notice inviting tender, for the work of 'Special repair of road from Mukhiya Hotel to Dam, between 01 K.M. to 02 K.M.' The said work was allotted to M/s. Gaurav Construction Private Limited. M/s. Rajiv Dubey Developers Private Limited though one of its directors being the respondent No.3, filed W.P. (C) No.4929 of 2017 before this Court. In the said writ petition vide order No.2 dated 31.08.2017, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court accorded permission to the petitioner to take steps for personal service of notice upon the respondent No.8 of that Writ Petition and directed that the counter-affidavit have to be filed positively by 11.09.2017. On 11.01.2018 vide order No.3 in I.A. No.9125 of 2017 of the said W.P. (C) No.4929 of 2017, the co-ordinate Bench observed that the contention of the petitioner for restraining respondent No.8 of that writ petition being M/s. Gourav Construction Private Limited to carry out the construction work in relation to the said tender and further to restrain the respondent Nos.1 to 7 to release payment in favour of the respondent No.8 in relation to the work carried by respondent No.8 in connection with the said tender shall be considered at the time of admission of the case.
2 W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018
4. It is pleaded by the writ petitioner that being unsuccessful in getting any favourable order in the said W.P. (C) No.4929 of 2017, the respondent No.3 simultaneously pursued complaint before the Lokayukta, Jharkhand requesting to order for vigilance enquiry against the Tendering Committee for deliberately allotting tender to non-competent contractor for gratifying their malafide intention. In support of the said application before the Lokayukta, Jharkhand, the respondent No.3 filed an affidavit sworn in by him wherein it was specifically mentioned by him that complaint of this nature has never been filed by him in any court and no complaint of this nature is pending in any court, which is an incorrect and false statement in view of pendency of the said W.P. (C) No.4929 of 2017.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court towards Section 10 (4-A) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 which reads as under:-
"(4-A) The Lokayukta shall not proceed with any investigation under this Act where the Supreme Court or the High Court issues any direction, order or writ under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the matter mentioned in the complaint under investigation." (Emphasis supplied) Submits that as the High Court passed the orders in W.P. (C) No.4929 of 2017, hence, the Lokayukta, Jharkhand has committed an illegality by proceeding with the investigation under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.
Therefore the same is not sustainable in law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that some false averments have been made before the Lokayukta, Jharkhand regarding M/s. Gourav Construction Private Limited. It has further been pleaded that the 3 W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018 respondent No.3 has deliberately suppressed the fact that the prayer made before the Lokayukta, Jharkhand are not similar to the prayer made before this Court in W.P. (C) No.4929 of 2017.
7. It is next submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Lokayukta, Jharkhand in excess of the jurisdiction vested upon it by the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 and has acted beyond his power. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Writ Petition, be allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rangnath Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 117 and submits that the recommendation for criminal investigation under PC Act and other enquiries, held, is not barred. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR. VERSUS BIKARTAN DAS & ORS. reported in 2023 INSC 733, paragraph 53 and 77 of which read as under:-
53. Relying on T.C. Basappa (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), laid down the following propositions as well established:
"(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or 4 W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018 tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice.
(3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction.
One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.
77. The purpose of certiorari, as we understand, is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. This Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd.
Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 334 observed:
"26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made."
(Emphasis supplied) that the court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.
10. Now, coming to the fact of the case, a plain reading of Section 10 (4-A) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 makes it crystal clear that the same 5 W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018 prohibits the Lokayukta to proceed with any investigation under this Act where the Supreme Court or the High Court issues any direction, order or writ under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in respect of the matter mentioned in the complaint under investigation. Thus, a sine qua non for this prohibition upon the Lokayukta is not merely pending of a writ under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court or the High Court but the additional requirement is that there must be at least a direction, order or writ by either the Supreme Court or the High Court.
11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, admittedly neither any direction nor any writ has been issued by the Supreme Court or the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that the order No.2 dated 31.08.2017 and the order No.3 dated 11.09.2018; about which there has been discussions in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, can be treated orders passed in W.P. (C) No.4929 of 2017 by the High Court. Hence, as both the condition for prohibition as envisaged under of Section 10 (4-A) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 is complied with, hence, the Lokayukta has committed a gross illegality by proceeding with the investigation under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that the word 'order' has been defined in Section 2 (14) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 which reads as under:-
14. "order" means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree"
So, in order to constitute the "order" as mentioned in Section 10 (4-A) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001; in the considered opinion of this Court, 6 W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018 the order passed must contain the formal expression of any decision or else the legislature ought to have used the words "any matter/ writ petition pending"
instead of "orders" as any matter pending before any court begins with an order only.
13. Now, coming to the order dated 31.08.2017 by which the permission to take steps for personal service upon the respondent No.8 and the order dated 11.01.2018 by which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the contention of the petitioner for interim relief will be considered at the time of admission of the case, does not contain any formal expression of any decision of the court. Hence, they cannot be termed as "order" as referred to under Section 10 (4-A) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.
14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that, this is not a case where the Lokayukta exceeded his jurisdiction or committed any illegality in recommending departmental proceeding in violation of Section 10 (4-A) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001; because of pendency of W.P. (C) No.4929 of 2017, in this court.
15. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, as it is a settled principle of law; as has been referred to above in this judgment regarding the limited scope for interference with the findings of fact reached by the Lokayukta; for issuing a writ of certiorari, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where this Court shall issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Lokayukta, Jharkhand in Case No.01/Lok (Water Resource Department) 01/2018.
7 W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018
16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed and consequent upon dismissal of this Writ Petition, interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of May, 2024 AFR/ Animesh-Saroj 8 W.P.(C) No.6109 of 2018