Bombay High Court
Ajay Pralhad Lahane vs The State Of Maha. Thr Offi. Of Dept. ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:3476-DB
1 Cri.WP-181-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 181 OF 2025
Ajay s/o Pralhad Lahane
Aged about 56 Years; Occupation: Service,
R/o Rallies Bungalow, Opp. R.T.O. Office,
Camp, Amravati. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the office of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Anti
Corruption Department, Akola.
2. The Director General,
Anti Corruption Department,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri F. T. Mirza, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms Madhura Bhande, Counsel
for Petitioner.
Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 02, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) :
1. Rule. Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
waives notice of hearing for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner, an Officer in the State Government is presently
posted as a Director of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Vidarbha Administrative
and Development Training Academy, Amravati.
2 Cri.WP-181-2025
3. It is claimed that in the past while serving as the Municipal
Commissioner of Akola Municipal Corporation, the petitioner initiated
disciplinary enquiry proceedings against an employee, which led to the
said employee lodging a false complaint of acquiring disproportionate
assets by the petitioner. The said complaint was duly taken cognizance by
the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 accordingly started issuing
communications calling information from the petitioner for conducting an
open enquiry. Such notices/summonses are questioned in the present writ
petition alleging that the same are contrary to the mandate provided by
the State Government in the Circular dated July 27, 2015.
4. Shri F.T. Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner,
would invite the attention of this Court to the Circular dated July 27, 2015
issued by the General Administration Department, which also refers to the
earlier circular dated March 03, 2015. According to the learned Senior
Counsel Shri Mirza, the Petitioner, being Group-A Officer, in the matter of
open enquiry against such Officer, it is necessary for the Director General,
Anti-Corruption Department to examine the case on his own and only after
the satisfaction, shall obtain consent of the Secretary, Home Department so
as to conduct such open enquiry. According to him, it is also necessary that
the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, before submitting such
proposal to the State Government, shall obtain consent of the Head of the
3 Cri.WP-181-2025
Administrative Department of such employee against whom an open
enquiry is proposed.
5. The learned Senior Counsel in this background would claim that
the additional consent of the Revenue Department is not obtained while
submitting the proposal. He would claim that even if the earlier circular
dated March 03, 2015 provides for grant of deemed permission, same has
been merged in the circular dated July 27, 2015. Perusal of the circular
dated July 27, 2015 will make it clear that the clause of deemed sanction
has been modified in view of the mandate provided therein. He would
further claim that the respondents, contrary to the above, has issued the
notices to the petitioner calling upon him to submit information, as could
be inferred from the communication dated January 01, 2025.
6. Shri Mirza, learned Senior Counsel, so as to substantiate the claim
that the Government has not consented for conducting an open enquiry
against the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to the
communication dated October 29, 2024 issued from the Administrative
Department of the petitioner, viz. the Revenue Department. By drawing
support from the said communication, in Paragraphs 2 and 3, he has
specifically urged that the Administrative Department has not consented
for conducting an open enquiry against the petitioner. That being so, he
would claim that the notices issued by the respondent No.2 are liable to be
quashed and set aside, viz. the declaration that the respondents cannot
4 Cri.WP-181-2025
proceed against the petitioner in the matter of open enquiry to be
conducted in regard to the disproportionate assets.
7. As against above, Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents, has opposed the prayer.
According to him, the respondent No.2 has conducted an enquiry in
accordance with the mandate provided in the circular
dated March 03, 2015. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
drawn support from clause (3) of the said circular so as to claim that there
is a deemed sanction/approval for conducting an enquiry, if not decided by
the Competent Authority, within a period of ninety days. As such, it is
claimed that based on the circular dated March 03, 2015, the respondent
No.2 has decided to proceed against the petitioner and that being so, the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as the decision of the respondent
No.2 is based on the Government policy.
8. We have considered the rival submissions.
9. The record depicts that the Administrative Department under which
the petitioner is working, viz. the Revenue and Forest Department,
addressed a communication dated October 09, 2023 to the Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati calling upon the said Authority
to furnish information on the issue which is referred to in the said
communication. The issue pertains to the acquisition of plot and disposal
5 Cri.WP-181-2025
of the same, the acquisition of shop block through gift-deed from mother,
and the acquisition of the agricultural land so also the vehicle.
10. It appears that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation
thereby intimating not only his source of money but also factually correct
information about the said property. Accordingly, the Divisional
Commissioner vide covering letter dated November 10, 2023 submitted the
explanation of the petitioner to the Administrative Department, as the
Divisional Commissioner has sought information from the petitioner about
the queries in the communication dated October 09, 2023 from the
petitioner.
11. Based on the above, the State Government vide communication
dated October 29, 2024 addressed to the respondent No.2 informed its
decision to refuse the permission sought for conducting an open enquiry in
the matter of the alleged disproportionate assets. The said communication
by the Administrative Department, viz. the Department of Revenue and
Forest, was based on the explanation tendered by the petitioner on the
decision of the respondent No.2-Anti-Corruption Department to conduct an
open enquiry, the Administrative Department has satisfied itself that the
petitioner has maintained complete transparency not only about his
acquisition of property but also about his source of money by giving every
intimation in detail to the State Government. As such, the proposal for
grant of consent for conducting an open enquiry was turned down and
6 Cri.WP-181-2025
further directions were issued to the respondent No.2 to recall the order
dated June 11, 2024 of conducting an open enquiry.
12. The respondent No.2 instead of acting on the instructions of the
Administrative Department has taken a shelter of the circular
dated March 03, 2015 issued by the General Administrative Department
thereby claiming that since the refusal to grant consent for conducting an
open enquiry was not communicated within a period of ninety days, there
is a deemed permission and as such the decision of conducting an open
enquiry was maintained and further called upon the petitioner to submit
information vide communication dated July 05, 2024.
13. It appears that the respondent No.2 has conveniently ignored the
mandate provided under the circular dated July 27, 2015 for the reasons
best known to it.
14. The respondent No.2, though was put to notice has chosen not to file
reply in the matter and it is the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Akola, without any authority, who has placed an affidavit on record on
behalf of the respondents, as could be inferred from the language
employed in the said reply. In the said affidavit, though the shelter is
taken of the circular dated March 03, 2015, the subsequent circular
wherein it is made mandatory to have not only the consent of the
Administrative Department but also the proposal to be routed through the
Chief Secretary, Home, is conveniently ignored. The circular dated
7 Cri.WP-181-2025
July 27, 2015 was very much in existence even prior to the decision of the
respondent No.2 dated June 11, 2024 of conducting an open enquiry
against the petitioner.
15. The Circular dated July 27, 2015 in categorical terms refers to the
earlier circular dated March 03, 2015. In view of the mandate provided in
the circular dated July 27, 2015, which is later in point of time, we fail to
understand as to what prompted the respondent No.2 not to adhere to the
circular dated July 27, 2015. Rather both the respondents have chosen not
to file their affidavit dealing with the aforesaid issue, but as observed
hereinabove, the Police Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Akola has
filed an affidavit, which, in our opinion, is without any authority.
16. We are also unable to convince ourselves from the said affidavit that
in spite of there being direction from the Administrative Department, as
reflected in the communication dated October 29, 2024, still how is it open
for the respondent No.2 to continue with the open enquiry. Once the State
Government, particularly the Administrative Department, has decided not
to grant consent, the circular dated July 27, 2015 will come into operation
and the respondents are required to conduct themselves in accordance
with the said circular.
17. In this background, we are of the view that the respondents have
acted not only contrary to the mandate provided in the circular
dated July 27, 2015 issued by the General Administration Department, but
8 Cri.WP-181-2025
also has ignored the refusal of consent communicated by the
Administrative Department, i.e. the Revenue and Forest Department, on
October 29, 2024. The Revenue and Forest Department in categorical
terms has accepted the explanation tendered by the respondents on the
acquisition of the property and the source for the same.
18. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has made out a case for
causing indulgence in extra ordinary jurisdiction.
19. As such, the writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b).
20. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
LANJEWAR
