Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs The State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 713 Bom

                       (24)-WP-4680-21.doc.


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          Digitally
          signed by
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2023.01.20
          10:24:34
          +0530
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.4680 OF 2021

                       Mr. Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire                      ..Petitioner
                             Versus
                       State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ..Respondents

                       Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Rohan Mahadik & Rachana
                       Karad i/by The Juris Partners, for the Petitioner.
                       Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
                       Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni a/w Aditya Mahadik & Sweta Shah, for the
                       Respondent No.4/PMC.

                                               CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                                       R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2023

P.C.

1. Heard.

2. During the preliminary inquiry certain information was sought from the officer of Pune Municipal Corporation, which he has failed to supply. As a sequel of which the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Pune Region seeking permission to conduct an open inquiry against the City Engineer of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Police Inspector has directed specific instances as to on which the said officer has not co-operated in the inquiry.

                       BGP.                                                      1 of 3
 (24)-WP-4680-21.doc.

3. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police forwarded the aforesaid communication dated 31st January, 2019 to the respondent No.2/Director General, Anti-Corruption who in turn sought permission for conducting open inquiry against the said officer. Vide impugned order dated 25th April, 2019, the respondent No.4 by a vague and cryptic order refused to grant permission. As such, this petition.

4. Mr. Rajiv Chavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by inviting attention of this Court to the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64 would urge that the respondent No.4 has conducted himself contrary to the record and so also provisions of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has specifically relied on the very communication issued by the Police Inspector as regards default of the officer against whom the permission to conduct an open inquiry was sought.

5. In response to the Court's query, Mr. Rajiv Chavan would urge that the above referred judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Subramanian Swamy (cited supra) does not warrant an opportunity of hearing to an officer against whom such permission is sought.

6. In the aforesaid background, issue notice to the respondent.

BGP.                                                       2 of 3
 (24)-WP-4680-21.doc.

7. APP waives service for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

8. Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni waives service for respondent No.4.

9. We direct respondent No.4/Municipal Corporation to file its affidavit in the matter explaining its views over the communication dated 31st January, 2019 referred (supra).

10. We expect the affidavit of respondent No.4 to be placed on record, in any case, by 3rd February, 2023.

11. Matter to come up for consideration on 7th February, 2023.

[R. N. LADDHA, J.]                       [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]




BGP.                                                        3 of 3