Delhi High Court
Daljeet Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 October, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Rev.Pet.No.438/2014 & CM 15725/2014 (impleadment) and CM
15727/2014 (stay) in W.P.(C) 5974/2014
+ Rev.Pet.No.439/2014 & CM 15728/2014 (impleadment) and CM
15729/2014 (stay) in W.P.(C) 5974/2014
Reserved on: 29.09.2014
Pronounced on: 14.10.2014.
DALJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
Mr.Sanjeev Narula, CGSC & Ms. Shreya Sinha,
Adv. for Union of India
Mr. K. Raghavacharvulyu with Ms. Arunima Pal,
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advs. for CBI
Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shalini
Kapoor, Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Mr.Pradeep
Aggarwal & Mr. Ankit Kohli, Advs. for
petitioner in Rev. Pet. No.438/2014
Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr.
Advocates with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Adv. for
petitioner in Rev. Pet. No.439/2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
: MS. G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The applicants who are third parties to W.P.(C)No.5974/2014 seek
their impleadment as party respondents and to review/recall the order dated
10.09.2014 made in W.P.(C) No.5974/2014.
Rev.Pet.No.438/2014 & CM 15725/2014 ,CM 15727/2014 in W.P.(C) 5974/2014
2. W.P.(C) No. 5974 of 2014 was disposed of by this Court by order
dated 10.09.2014 which reads as under:
"1. This writ petition, by way of public interest litigation, has
been filed seeking a direction for a thorough and in-depth
investigation by the CBI into the working and conduct of the
proceedings in the Board of Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction (BIFR) alleging inter alia misuse of the official
position by the members of BIFR who are arrayed as
respondents No.5 and 6. It is also alleged that the respondents
No.5 and 6 have been, in the name of reconstruction of the sick
industries, benefitting the persons in whom they are interested
and at times transferring the assets of the sick industries to
them at throw-away prices. Various other allegations including
indifferent non-judicious attitude, deliberate wrong recording
of the proceedings before the BIFR and abuse of process of law
have also been made by the petitioner.
2. However, even according to the petitioner FIR No.1A dated
03.03.2014 has already been registered by the respondent
No.4/CBI for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption
Act read with Section 120B of IPC and the accused in the said
FIR included the persons who have allegedly colluded with the
respondents No.5 and 6. The names of some of the accused
shown in FIR No.1A have been specifically mentioned in
the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the CBI, on instructions,
submits that the investigation in FIR No.1A is pending and the
averments in the present petition will also be taken into
consideration while proceeding with the said investigation.
4. Under the circumstances, we do not feel it necessary to
entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on any of the allegations made by the petitioner, the
writ petition is disposed of.
5. The statement of the learned counsel for CBI that the
averments in the present petition will be taken into
Rev.Pet.No.438/2014 & CM 15725/2014 ,CM 15727/2014 in W.P.(C) 5974/2014
consideration while proceeding with the investigation in FIR
No.1A dated 03.03.2014 is placed on record."
3. It is alleged in the applications that WP(C) No.5974 of 2014 filed by
way of public interest litigation was nothing but abuse of process of law
and that it was an attempt to taint the applicant companies which are in the
process of revival under the schemes sanctioned by the BIFR. It is also
alleged that the petitioner had grossly abused the forum of PIL and had
made baseless, scandalous and defamatory remarks against the Members
of BIFR apart from suppressing the material facts. The further contention
is that the order under review is in violation of the principles of natural
justice since the said order which was passed without hearing the
applicants would adversely affect their rights.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
5. As we could see, the applicant in Review Petition No.438/2014 is
concerned with Case No.5/1995 pending before BIFR wherein a
rehabilitation scheme is under implementation, whereas the applicant in
Review Petition No.439/2014 is the Mazdoor Union of J.K. Jute Mills
Company in respect of which the draft rehabilitation scheme is under
consideration vide Case No.149/1994.
6. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner having made
certain allegations against the respondents 5 & 6, gave the instances of the
proceedings in three cases pending before the BIFR, viz., Case
No.55/2008, Case No.5/1995 and Case No.149/1994. However, FIR
No.1A dated 03.03.2014 does not refer to the transactions which are the
subject matter of Case Nos.5/1995 and 149/1994 with which the applicants
herein are concerned. The allegations in FIR No.1A dated 03.03.2014
Rev.Pet.No.438/2014 & CM 15725/2014 ,CM 15727/2014 in W.P.(C) 5974/2014
appear to be only with regard to the sale transactions which are the subject
matter of Case No.55/2008 relating to M/s NRC Limited.
7. Therefore, it is sought to be contended by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the review petitioners that the order under review wherein
this Court recorded the statement of the counsel for the CBI that the
averments in the writ petition will also be taken into consideration while
proceeding with the investigation in FIR No.1A dated 03.03.2014 would
adversely affect the rehabilitation process in Case Nos.5/1995 and
149/1994. It is also contended that though the said FIR has nothing to do
with the rehabilitation schemes of the applicant companies, the CBI under
the guise of pending inquiry/investigation would interfere with the
dealings of the applicant companies and that the order under review is also
likely to influence the AAIFR in deciding the appeal pending before it.
8. We may, at the outset, point out that while disposing of the writ
petition, it was made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on
any of the allegations made by the petitioner. This Court never intended to
direct any investigation and in fact it was observed that there was no
necessity to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the apprehension of the
applicants is baseless and we do not find any substance in the contention
that the order under review would adversely affect the rights of the
applicants.
9. It may be added that registration of FIR is nothing but setting the
law in motion and the consequential steps would be taken in accordance
with law on the basis of the material gathered in the investigation. The law
is also well settled that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India will not direct the investigating authority
to proceed with the investigation in a particular way.
Rev.Pet.No.438/2014 & CM 15725/2014 ,CM 15727/2014 in W.P.(C) 5974/2014
10. It is represented by Mr. K. Raghavacharvulyu, the learned counsel
for the CBI that the order under review has not been understood by CBI as
a direction and that appropriate steps would be taken by CBI
independently following due process of law.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we make it clear that the order dated
10.09.2014 in W.P.(C)No.5974/2014 shall not be treated as a direction by
this Court to CBI and it is for the CBI to act independently in accordance
with law.
12. Accordingly, all the applications are disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
OCTOBER 14, 2014
„anb‟
Rev.Pet.No.438/2014 & CM 15725/2014 ,CM 15727/2014 in W.P.(C) 5974/2014
