Delhi High Court
Kirti Azad & Ors vs Delhi District Cricket ... on 9 February, 2016
Author: Manmohan
$~ 49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1105/2016 & C.M.No.4837/2016
KIRTI AZAD & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Ram Jethmalani, Sr.Advocate
with Ms.Lataa Krishna Murthy,
Mr.Amit A.Pai, Mr.Anish L.Shah,
Mr.Rahat Bansal, Mr.Anirudh Anand
and Mr.Shashank Bhansal,
Advocates.
versus
DELHI DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ORS
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sangram Patnaik with Mr.Rajiv
Gupta, Advocates for DDCA.
Mr.N.K.Kaul, ASG with
Mr.R.Balasubramaniam and
Mr.Sanyat Lodha, Advocates for R-4.
Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Rajuj
Jain, Mr.Shreshth Jain and
Ms.Natasha Thakur, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr.Ajay Arora with Mr.Dinesh
K.Puchnanda, Advocates for MCD.
Mr.Rahul Mehra, Sr.Standing
Counsel with Mr.Gautam Naryan,
ASC for GNCTD.
Mr.Ishaan Madaan, Advocate for R-
14.
% Date of Decision: 09th February, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
W.P.(C) No.1105/2016 Page 1 of 5
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been seeking a court-monitored
investigation by the CBI in preliminary investigation file
no.5845/PE(S)/15/SCU-II/CBI/New Delhi into high level of
corruption in respondent no.1-DDCA or to constitute a Special
Investigation Team to investigate into the mismanagement by the
officials of DDCA. A prayer has also been made for issuing an
appropriate writ directing the Union of India to cancel the privileges
like subsidized land, etc. that have been extended to respondent no.1
and to ensure that no loss is caused to the exchequer.
2. Mr.Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
points out that the fact-finding inquiry committee in its report dated
29th December, 2014 has concluded that the magnitude and extent of
improprieties, irregularities and misconduct committed by various
officials mentioned in the report is quite complicated, gigantic and it
is upto the Executive Committee of the Association to take it to its
logical conclusion.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also refers to certain
portions of the report submitted by Justice (Retd.) Mukul Mudgal,
Former Chief Justice Punjab & Haryana High Court to contend that
deficiencies were found in the preparation of the Fourth Test Match
and functioning of DDCA. In the said report, Justice (Retd.) Mukul
Mudgal has held that the tendering system was not transparent in the
past and there was poor record keeping and delay in payment of bills,
and that allotment of corporate boxes and naming of the pavilions and
stands need to be renewed as well as the other aspects i.e
finance/accounts wing, defunct sub-committees, ticketing etc. need to
be re-examined.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Additional Solicitor
General for CBI states that a preliminary inquiry has already been
registered by the CBI on 23rd October, 2015 and the matter is under
investigation. He submits that the present writ petition is pre-mature
as the alleged malpractices pertain to the period 2008-2014. He states
that the CBI has asked for documents from DDCA and has received
some of them. He further states that certain documents have also
been asked for from certain other organizations and some of them are
still awaited. He also states that 18 witnesses have been examined till
date.
6. Mr.Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor Jain, appearing on advance
notice for UOI, states that other sport bodies like DLTA have been
given land at the concessional rate on the same basis. He points out
that the policy on the basis of which subsidized land has been made
has not even been challenged in the writ petition.
7. In rejoinder, Mr.Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners submits that since the information furnished by the
petitioners discloses a cognizable offence, the CBI must register an
FIR and this Court must monitor the investigation as well as
constitute a special investigation team to investigate the
mismanagement by officials of DDCA.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is in
agreement with the submission of Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Additional
Solicitor General for CBI that the present writ petition is pre-mature
as the preliminary inquiry has been registered only on 23rd October,
2015 and CBI has not had reasonable time to investigate the case,
especially keeping in view the fact that the allegations pertain to the
period 2008-2014. In the opinion of this Court, inquiry of such a
magnitude cannot be expected to be completed in three months.
9. This Court is confident that CBI shall investigate all the aspects
of the matter including the two reports referred to by Mr.Ram
Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in accordance
with the law.
10. This Court is also of the opinion that a special investigation
team as well as a court-monitored investigation should be ordered in
the rarest of rare cases and not for the asking and that too, on the sole
ground that the petitioners have an apprehension that CBI would not
investigate the matter fairly as some of the allegations are directed
against a sitting Union Minister. Neither any basis for the
apprehension nor any allegations against any official of the CBI have
been made in the present writ petition. After all, CBI is a premier
investigating agency and in the past, it has successfully investigated
the conduct of various sitting ministers.
11. Consequently as the preliminary inquiry has been registered
and investigation is continuing, this Court is of the opinion that the
present writ petition is not maintainable. Moreover, this Court is of
the view that as the policy on the basis of which subsidized land has
been made available to all sports bodies, has not been challenged,
even prayer (b) in the present writ petition cannot be granted.
Accordingly, the writ petition along with the pending application is
dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2016
KA
