Jharkhand High Court
Mr.Vishnu Dayal Ram (Ips) vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2011
Equivalent citations: 2011 (2) AIR JHAR R 709, (2011) 3 JCR 311 (JHA)
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5459 of 2010
Mr. Vishnu Dayal Ram (IPS) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Home Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & others ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s B.K. Kanth, Sr. Ad. & P. Pallav, Ad.
For the State : Advocate General
For the Union of India : Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate
-----
I.A. No. 262 of 2011
12/ 15.04.2011While the petitioner was posted as Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, he and one Rajiv Kumar, the then Additional Director General of Police, utilized a sum of Rs. 5.6 crores and 2.5. crores respectively of the Secret Service Fund. After three years, some newspapers reported in the year 2009 that there had been misuse of Secret Service Fund. On such reports, two cases of the nature of Public Interest Litigations bearing W.P. (PIL) No. 3439 of 2009 (Rajiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and others) and W.P. (PIL) No. 3975 of 2009 (Ram Subhag Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others) were filed in this Court on 23.7.2009 and 24.7.2009 respectively with the prayers, inter alia, to direct the C.B.I. or any other independent agency to conduct an inquiry/investigation into the matter of withdrawal of huge amount from said Secret Service Fund.
In those cases, counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the State Government, wherein it was stated that in view of the non- availability of vouchers and relevant registers, it would be difficult for the Investigating Agency of the State to hold inquiry/investigation but said inquiry/investigation can be undertaken by the C.B.I. Thus, it was stated that the State shall have no objection if the matter is handed over to the C.B.I. for inquiry by this Court.
On such assertion, the case was disposed of on 28.8.2010 observing that the petitioner has no objection if appropriate action is taken at the hands of the State Government. Thereafter, in response to certain D.O. letters relating to the drawl of the amount from the Secret Service Fund, the then Home Secretary, Government of India, wrote a letter on 16.9.2010 to the then Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, intimating therein that the consent of the State Government in terms of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is required for conducting an inquiry/investigation by the C.B.I. Subsequent to that, one writ application bearing W.P. (C) No. 292 of 2010 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein prayer was made for in-depth inquiry by the C.B.I. into utilization of the Secret Service Fund by the police Authorities of each State including the State of Jharkhand. The said writ application was dismissed by holding that there is no statutory provision to institute the C.B.I. inquiry in the matter of drawl of the Secret Service Fund.
Thereupon, letters were written by the petitioner to the Home Secretary, Government of India as well as to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to consider the matter relating to drawl of money from the Secret Service Fund afresh in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2010.
HoweverIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5459 of 2010
Mr. Vishnu Dayal Ram (IPS) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Home Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & others ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s B.K. Kanth, Sr. Ad. & P. Pallav, Ad.
For the State : Advocate General
For the Union of India : Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate
-----
I.A. No. 262 of 201112/ 15.04.2011 While the petitioner was posted as Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, he and one Rajiv Kumar, the then Additional Director General of Police, utilized a sum of Rs. 5.6 crores and 2.5. crores respectively of the Secret Service Fund. After three years, some newspapers reported in the year 2009 that there had been misuse of Secret Service Fund. On such reports, two cases of the nature of Public Interest Litigations bearing W.P. (PIL) No. 3439 of 2009 (Rajiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and others) and W.P. (PIL) No. 3975 of 2009 (Ram Subhag Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others) were filed in this Court on 23.7.2009 and 24.7.2009 respectively with the prayers, inter alia, to direct the C.B.I. or any other independent agency to conduct an inquiry/investigation into the matter of withdrawal of huge amount from said Secret Service Fund.
In those cases, counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the State Government, wherein it was stated that in view of the non- availability of vouchers and relevant registers, it would be difficult for the Investigating Agency of the State to hold inquiry/investigation but said inquiry/investigation can be undertaken by the C.B.I. Thus, it was stated that the State shall have no objection if the matter is handed over to the C.B.I. for inquiry by this Court.
On such assertion, the case was disposed of on 28.8.2010 observing that the petitioner has no objection if appropriate action is taken at the hands of the State Government. Thereafter, in response to certain D.O. letters relating to the drawl of the amount from the Secret Service Fund, the then Home Secretary, Government of India, wrote a letter on 16.9.2010 to the then Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, intimating therein that the consent of the State Government in terms of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is required for conducting an inquiry/investigation by the C.B.I. Subsequent to that, one writ application bearing W.P. (C) No. 292 of 2010 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein prayer was made for in-depth inquiry by the C.B.I. into utilization of the Secret Service Fund by the police Authorities of each State including the State of Jharkhand. The said writ application was dismissed by holding that there is no statutory provision to institute the C.B.I. inquiry in the matter of drawl of the Secret Service Fund.
Thereupon, letters were written by the petitioner to the Home Secretary, Government of India as well as to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to consider the matter relating to drawl of money from the Secret Service Fund afresh in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 292 of 2010. However, a notification in terms of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was issued on 23.10.2010 enabling the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise power and jurisdiction in the State of Jharkhand in the matter relating to drawl of the amount from the Secret Service Fund.
That order has been challenged before this Court in this writ application. On 29.10.2010 this Court taking into consideration the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ application passed an order whereby operation of the notification was stayed. Thereupon, two intervention petitions bearing I.A. Nos. 3983 and 4208 of 2010 were filed on behalf of the Raju Kumar and Ram Subhag Singh respectively for impleading them as party-respondents on the plea that the writ application did crop up from the order passed by this Court in the Public Interest Litigation, which had been filed by them, and as such they do have right to intervene in the writ application. However, both the Interlocutory Applications were dismissed on the ground that the right of the interveners is not going to be affected adversely even if the prayer made in the writ application is allowed. The said order was challenged in L.P.A. No. 08 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.1.2011, which reads as follows:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the order, passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 3975 of 2009, we consider that the appellant is a proper party there in the W.P. (S) No. 5459 of 2010 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge may consider the request of the appellant for joining him as a party respondent to W.P. (S) No. 5459 of 2010 afresh.
This Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly, disposed of."
Pursuant to that order, an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 262 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of the Intervener-Ram Subhag Singh for impleading him as a party-respondent.
Heard Mr. B.K. Kanth, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Intervener.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that number of writ applications not only before this Court but also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been filed for directing the C.B.I. to take up the investigation of the matter relating to drawl of huge amount from the Secret Service Fund in different States including the State of Jharkhand, as they suspected misappropriation of huge amount of Secret Service Fund by concerned persons including the petitioner but in none of those cases either this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the prayer by directing the C.B.I. to take up the matter for inquiry/investigation and in that view of the matter, the Intervener cannot be said to be a proper party. It was further argued that the Appellate Court while disposing of L.P.A. No. 08 of 2011 vide its order dated 10.1.2011 has never held that the Intervener is the proper party, rather as per the order, the appellant was considered to be a proper party and, therefore, the matter was remanded back for considering the request of the appellant afresh for joining him as a party- respondent.
It was further argued that admittedly the prayer, made by the Intervener or any other person in any of Public Interest Litigations for directing the C.B.I. to take up the investigation in the matter had never been allowed by this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the instant writ application is an outcome of those Public Interest Litigations including W.P.(PIL) No. 3975 of 2009 and as such, the Intervener can never be considered to be a proper party taking into account the relief, sought for, in this writ application.
Learned counsel further submits that though the matter has been remanded by the Appellate Court for consideration as to whether the Intervener is a proper party or not but the order dated 1.12.2010 passed by this Court has never been set aside and as such, any other finding if recorded other than the finding given earlier would amount review of the order which would not be permissible as there is no apparent error in the order dated 1.12.2010.
As against this, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the Intervener, submits that the Appellate Court after taking into consideration the order passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 3975 of 2009 has virtually held that the appellant is a proper party and in that view of the matter, the Intervener be impleaded as a party-respondent.
I do find force in the submission advanced on behalf of the Intervener who had filed W.P. (PIL) No. 3975 of 2009, which was disposed of on 28.8.2010, which reads as follows:-
"The State Government has come up with an assertion in the reply affidavit that "that in view of the reasons stated in the aforesaid report, it is not possible to verify the claims of the disbursement made to different police officers and more so the disbursements made directly by Sri V.D. Ram to independent sources. As a matter of fact, in view of the non- availability of vouchers and relevant registers, any enquiry/investigation by State Agencies looks difficult at present juncture. It can at best be done by an independent investigation agency, like C.B.I. Hence, the State shall have no objection, if the matter is handed over to the C.B.I. for enquiry by the Hon'ble High Court. However, it is prayed and submitted that the enquiring agency should handle the matter in a strictly confidential manner, so that the identity of the informers, etc. are not made public lest it may harm their interest and also deprive State from getting information in future"
With such assertion of the State Government, the petitioner has no objection if appropriate action is taken at the hands of the State Government.
In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of."
Whatever may be the nature of the order but this much is certain that the said order is an outcome of the litigation brought by the Intervener wherein certain materials have been disclosed. Therefore, there does not appear to be any difficulty in holding the Intervener to be a proper party, as the proper parties are those whose presence as a matter of convenience is required for enabling the Court to adjudicate more effectively and completely and in that view of the matter, the Intervener can be held to be a proper party.
So far as other submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, I do not find any substance in it. It is true that the order dated 1.12.2010 has not been set aside by the Appellate Court but the matter has been referred back for consideration as to whether the Intervener is a proper party or not. In the earlier order consideration never seems to be there as to whether the Intervener is a proper party or not, rather consideration was mainly as to whether the Intervener is a necessary party or not.
In that view of the matter, it hardly matters as to whether the order passed by this Court earlier has been set aside or not, as the matter is to be considered as to whether the Intervener is a proper party or not which on consideration has been found to be a proper party, as discussed above.
Resultantly, the Intervener is allowed to be impleaded as party- respondent no. 6.
I.A. No. 262 of 2011 stands disposed of.
AKT (R.R. Prasad, J.)