Karnataka High Court
B.G. Prakash Kumar vs The Commissioner on 1 August, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 1156-1159/2012(LB-BMP)
&
WRIT PETITION No. 1160/2012(LB-BMP)
BETWEEN
1. B.G. Prakash Kumar
S/o B.R. Gopal Gowda
Aged about 56 years
Working as Executive Engineer BBMP
Office at Corporation Building
Sampige Road, Malleshwaram
Bangalore.
2. N. Keera Naiak
S/o Nania Naiak
Aged about 57 years
Working as executive Engineer BBMP
Office at BDA Shopping Complex
Nagarabhavi Main Road
Rajarajeshwari Nagar
Bangalore
3. S.Mallikarjuna Gowda
S/o Chenne Gowda
Aged about 52 years
Working as Assistant Executive Engineer
BBMP Office at D.C. West Office
Sampige Road, Malleshwaram
Bangalore.
2
4. Ranganath
S/o Doddarangappa
Aged about 50 years
Working as Assistant Executive
Engineer, BBMP
Office at Corporation Building
Near Thulsi Thoota
Upperpet, Bangalore -09
5. M Parabhu
S/o V. Muniswamy
Aged about 45 years
Working as Assistant Engineer BBMP
W-9, Gandhinagar Sub-Division BBMP
Bangalore- 560 009 ... Petitioners
(By.Sri.Shankarappa, Adv.
for M/S M.T. Nanaiah Associates, Advs.)
AND
1. The Commissioner
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Office at N.R. Square
Bangalore 560 002
2. Additional Commissioner (Administration)
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Office at N.R. Square
Bangalore 560 002
3. Chief Engineer
Technical and Vigilance Cell under
Committee
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Office at N.R. Square
Bangalore 560 002.
3
4. The Inspector General of Police
Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Office at N.R. Square
Bangalore 560 002
5. The Under Secretary
Government of Karnataka
Internal Administration, (Crime)
Vikasa Soudha
Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001
6. Criminal Investigation Department
Represented by Director General of
Police (CID), Palace Road
Opposite to Auditor General Office
Bangalore- 01. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Manjula R.Kammandalli, HCGP for R5 & R6
Sri R. Subramanya, Adv. for
M/s. Ashok Haranahalli Assts. for R1 to R4)
These Writ Petition are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash
the report of the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A, Dated
2.11.2011 and the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent
based on the report of the 3rd respondent report vide
Annexure-B, dated 03.11.2011 and FIR lodged by the
4th respondent vide Annexure-C, dated 04.11.2011 vide
FIR No.4/11 and the report of the 4th respondent vide
Annexure-D, dated 07.12.2011 and the order passed by
the 5th respondent vide Annexure-F, dated 07.12.2011
and quash the entire proceedings in the above said
matter pending before the 6th respondent.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, the court made the following:-
4
ORDER
Petitioners in these writ petitions pray for quashing the report of the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A, Dated 2.11.2011 and the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent based on the report of the 3rd respondent report vide Annexure-B, dated 03.11.2011 and FIR lodged by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-C, dated 04.11.2011 vide FIR No.4/11 and the report of the 4th respondent vide Annexure-D, dated 07.12.2011 and the order passed by the 5th respondent vide Annexure-F, dated 07.12.2011 and to quash the entire proceedings in the above said matter pending before the 6th respondent.
2. The facts leading to this case are that the petitioners are the engineers working under the Office of the first respondent. It is stated that at the relevant point of time they were working as engineers in Western Region Gandhinagar, Malleshwaram, Rajarajeshwari 5 Nagar to carryout the work assigned by the first respondent for the period 2008-09 to 2011 - 12. On a complaint made regarding irregularities in carrying out the public works, a case was referred to the third respondent, and a report has been submitted by him as per Annexure-A and on the said report the Commissioner, BBMP the first respondent registered a case with the 4th respondent-Inspector General of Police, BMTF( Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force) vide Annexure-B. In pursuance of the directions issued by the second respondent an FIR was registered by the fourth respondent in Crime No.4/11 dated 04.11.2011 in the BMTF Police station, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 409, 465, 468, 471, 477(a) r/w Section 120(B) of IPC and Under Section 23 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, against the persons to ascertain and identify and also the amount cheated/misappropriated vide Annexure-C. Based on 6 the report of the third respondent and also on the basis of complaint lodged by the second respondent, the fourth respondent made an elaborate investigation and submitted a report to the Government. Much less no memos or notices have been issued to them or imposed fine for any lapse on their part. Despite the same, it is the first and fourth respondents unnecessarily are harassing these petitioners. Hence petitioners challenge Annexures E and F. Annexure-E dated 28.11.2011 is modified by Annexure-F dated 07.12.2011.On the basis of the complaint registered for the purpose of investigation, it has been handed over to CID, Bangalore.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since this offence falls under the provisions of IPC, 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to register the case and Government cannot hand over the case to the CID for investigation. In support of his submission learned counsel refers to Annexure-G the Government order 7 dated 02.02.2013 in No. UDD 349 MNU 2011 Bangalore, in which it is stated that:
" BMTF can register a case and proceed with the investigation of case if the facts contained in the complaint disclose the offences under the Special Acts mentioned in G.O.NO. UDD 247 MUNU 95 dated 19.03.1996 and those mentioned above read with or without those relevant under the Indian Penal Code and the Karnataka Police Act. If the complaint discloses commission of offence only under the IPC or under the Karnataka Police Act, then it will not be competent on the part of the BMTF to proceed with the investigation."
Under these circumstances, the impugned orders at Annexures A to F are liable to be set aside and these petitions to be allowed.
4. Learned Government Advocate files statement of objections and submitted to dismiss this writ petition. He submits that these petitioners have 8 no locus standi to challenge the impugned order at Annexure-F whereunder the case was handed over to CID for the purpose of investigation, On the basis of the complaint by the second respondent a case was registered with the 4th respondent. In view of the registration of the case it is the duty of the Investigating officer; and for the purpose of investigation, CID has been directed to look into it. Hence there is no irregularities committed and petitions to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent - BBMP submitted to dismiss these writ petitions. He supports the proceedings Annexure F by the Government and handing over of the case to CID.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Firstly, the locus standi of the petitioners have been examined. Nowhere in the proceedings either in the FIR or in Annexures E and F the cases of the 9 petitioners have been refereed. Merely they were working under the first respondent in the above said period, does not confer any grievance to file the said complaint. It is true that some irregularities were found during the period when these petitioners were working. The question has been gone into by the department Chief Officer (V & P.P.E.D) and found a truth in it. When such being the case, unless any liability or responsibility or commissioning of the offence is found against them, they do not have any grievance to file these petitions. Hence it is observed that petitioners have no grievance or locus standi in these writ petitions. Accordingly the prayer made by the petitioners to set aside the Annexures A - Enquiry report and Annexure B, FIR cannot be accepted.
8. Government has handed over the investigation to CID vide Annexure-F, CID is a competent investigating authority to go into the matter. It is for the Government to decide to whom the 10 investigation has to be handed over. The said thing is a prerogative one and the investigation has been handed over to CID by order dated 28.11.2011. The said order has been modified vide Annexure-F and there is no much difference between Annexures E and F.
9. With regard to the last contention raised by the petitioners as per Annexure G the Government order dated 02.02.2013. In the said Government order, at Para No.8 it is referred that BMTF can register a case wherein misconduct or an offence committed under Special Acts. In this case, Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act or the laws framed thereunder are considered as the Special Acts. Under these circumstances, Government is right in handing over the matter to the CID. Incidentally, some of the offences charged in this matter also falls under IPC. The Government order referred to above specifically states that if an offence falls under IPC it is not for the BMTF to proceed with the investigation. Since the offence falls 11 under both Special Acts and IPC and it is the BMTF who has registered a case and rightly transferred it to CID, which is a competent investigating authority constituted specially to investigate the cases specially referred by the Government. In that view of the matter, the Government has taken a right decision.
10. Under these circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere with this matter. Accordingly this petition stands dismissed.
It is further made clear that these petitioners do not have any grievance to file these petitions. In view of the same these petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv