Jharkhand High Court
Sushil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2022
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No.7176 of 2017
-----
Sushil Kumar Singh, Son of Late Parshuram Singh,
Resident of Janak Nagar, P.O. _ Sukhdeo Nagar, P.S. -
Pandra O.P., Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Additional Director General of Police (Anti
Corruption Bureau) Adre House, P.O. _ Ranchi
University, P.S. - Gonda, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. -
Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation having its office
C.G.O. Complex, P.O. & P.S. - Lodhi Road, Dist. - New
Delhi.
5. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation having its
office C.G.O. Complex, P.O. & P.S. - Lodhi Road, Dist. -
New Delhi.
6. The Director, Enforcement Directorate, Sivaji Park, P.O.
& P.S. - Sivaji Park, Dist. - New Delhi.
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of 2018
-----
Jharkhand Against Corruption through its Convener Surya
Singh Besra, aged about 62 years, son of Late Sawna
Besra, Resident of Bara Kanjya, P.O. & P.S.-Dumariya,
District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Building, Post Office-Dhurwa, Police Station-
Jaggannathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Sports, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Building, Post Office-Dhurwa,
Police Station-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
4. The Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Project
Building, Post Office-Dhurwa, Police Station-
Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
5. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Adre
House, Post Office-Ranchi University, Police Station-
Gonda, District-Ranchi.
[2]
6. The Additional Director General, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Adre House, Post Office-Ranchi University,
Police Station-Gonda, District-Ranchi.
7. The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director,
C.G.O. Complex, Post Office & Post Station-C.G.O.
Complex, District-New Delhi.
8. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, C.G.O.
Complex, Post Office & Police Station-C.G.O. Complex,
District-New Delhi.
9. The Director, Enforcement Directorate, Shivaji Park, Post
Office & Police Station-Shivaji Park, District-New Delhi.
10. The Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department,
Income Tax Building, Main Road, Post Office and Police
Station-Chutia, District-Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(PIL) No.1580 of 2019
-----
The Centre 4 R.T.I. (registered trust under Trust Act)
through its President, Pankaj Kumar Yadav, aged about 32
year, S/o Raj Kishore Pd. Yadav, Gayatri Nagar, Sudna, PO
& PS-Sudna, Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Bhawan,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Additional Director General of police, Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Adre House, P.O.-Ranchi University,
P.S.-Gonda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, Department of Sports, Culture and Youth
Affairs, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Central Bureau of Investigation, having its office at
Plot No. 5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S.-
Lodhi Road, District-New Delhi.
6. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, having its office at
Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Gautam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
-----------------------------
[3]
ORAL ORDER
16/Dated 11th April, 2022
All the three writ petitions are being heard together
as common issues are involved in these writ petitions, with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
W.P.(PIL) No.7176 of 2017
2. The writ petition bearing W.P.(PIL) No.7176 of 2017
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred inter alia for grant of following reliefs:-
i) For the direction upon the respondents no. 4 and 5,
to investigate the Vigilance P.S. Case No.49/10
registered on 06.10.2010, under section 409, 420,
467, 468, 471 and sec 13(1)(d) P.C. Act 1988, as the
audit can has detected mass scale financial
irregularities committed in 34th National Games by the
accused persons and due to the influence of the high
profile persons like, Ex Union Minister, Ex-Chief
Minister and the Investigating Officers and the then
DIG and were ADG manages after receiving huge
amount through Hawala, as it is evident from the
conversations of R.K.Anand and others, who were
directly benefited from the misdirected and delay
investigation.
ii) For the direction upon the respondents to
investigate the involvement of officers, like the then
Additional Director General of Police, Mr. Neeraj
[4]
Sinha, the then Deputy Director General of Police, and
Shailendra Kumar Sinha, the then Investigating
Officer, who has taken money through middle men
and has managed the case against Mr. R.K.Anand, Ex-
M.P., and Sr. Advocate/President of Jharkhand
Olympic Association, where, the role of Subodh Kant
Sahay, the ex Union Minister and the then as is
evident from the conversation of the R.K.Anand and
Prabhat Sharma, Sanjay Sharma, Neel Kamal,
Santosh and others (hawala Agents), Chetan Anand,
Son of R.K.Anand, Advocate Supreme Court/High
Court indicates to what extent the vigilance
Bureau/A.C.B. was sold its interest by these officers.
iii) For the direction upon the Enforcement Directorate to
investigate the properties (both movable and
immovable) earned illegally by the respondents no. 11
and 12 by misusing their office and interfering in the
investigation of the 34th National Games, where
money worth crores of rupees exchanged hands and
as a result, the criminal cases against such high
profile people has been managed till date and even
today also the officers are influenced due to might of
R.K.Anand, therefore rest of the three accused has
been charge sheeted except R.K.Anand.
3. The fact which led the writ petitioner to invoke the
jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the
[5]
Constitution of India seeking the aforesaid directions, reads
as under :-
It is the case of the writ petitioner that 34 th National
Games were organized under the auspices of National
Games Organizing Committee/Jharkhand Olympic
Association. During organizing the games, crores have been
spent, wherein, it has been detected that there is an
embezzlement of huge amount by the organizers of the
games.
One Bhola Nath Singh, lodged a F.I.R. in the
Vigilance Bureau to investigate the embezzlement of public
money, which was registered as Vigilance Case No.49/2010
dated 06.10.2010.
The matter was investigated and the allegations
were found true against three persons, namely, Madhu
Kant Pathak, S.M.Hashmi and P.C. Mishra, whereas the
allegations against Mr. R.K.Anand, during the relevant
time, was still under investigation since 2010.
It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that since
2010, the investigation of the said case is pending only
against Mr. R.K.Anand, the President, Jharkhand Olympic
Association due to the reasons evident from the audio
conversations of various respondents and the Hawala
operators.
It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the
transcript of audio-conversations between R.K.Anand,
[6]
Prabhat Sharma, Sanjay Sharma, Chetan Anand and
Hawala Agents indicate that as to how, the money has
changed hands from Delhi to Ranchi, through Hawala in
Special Case No.66/2010.
It is also the case of the writ petitioner that he
possesses the C.D. where the true conversation of
R.K.Anand and others are there.
It has further been stated that the final form has
been filed being Final Form No.02/2015 dated 09.01.2015
against Prakash Chand Mishra, Sayed Matlub Hashmi and
Madhukant Pathak, whereas the investigation has not been
completed against R.K. Anand till date.
It is the further case of the writ petitioner that
Mr. R.K.Anand, Ex-M.P. of the political party, namely,
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) along with his son
namely, Chetan Anand, Prabhat Sharma and Sanjay
Sharma are managing the investigating officer of the case
namely Shailendra Kumar Sinha and the then Additional
Director General of Poilice, Mr. Neeraj Sinha.
It is the further case that money has been admitted
to be paid to the police officers through Hawala agents and
due to that reason the investigation is still going on against
Mr. R.K. Anand.
W.P.(S) No.5788 of 2018
4. This writ petition has been preferred for the
following reliefs:-
[7]
(A) For the direction upon the respondents no.4 to
immediately hand over investigation to respondent 7
& 8 as they are incapable of investigating the sports
complex construction scam which is pending with
them since long for more than eight years or, so,
and even after the order of this Hon'ble Court in
W.P.(PIL) No.7719/12 by this Hon'ble a bench
headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice S.Chandrasekhar, on 31.1.2014, but till
date it has not been complete, showing all
disrespect possible to the order of this Hon'ble
Court.
(B) For the direction upon the respondents especially
respondent no.5 and 6 to submit the status report
of investigation, as the petitioner has already
approached before the respondent no.5 and 6 long
time back in the year 2008, but till date the
respondents have not done anything with regard to
the investigation.
5. The brief facts of this case, as per the pleadings are
as under :-
It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had
approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(PIL)
No.7719 of 2012 wherein, this Court has directed the
Vigilance Bureau (now Anti-Corruption Bureau) to complete
the investigation in the construction of Mega Sports
[8]
Complex, but till date in spite of the order of this Court,
investigation has not been completed.
It is the further case of the writ petitioner by making
reference of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Sports Department on 02.09.2013 and 17.09.2013, that
the stand taken therein are contradictory to each other as
one affidavit speaks about the fact that investigation
pertaining to commission of irregularities in the
construction of Mega Sports Complex has been handed over
to then Vigilance Bureau whereas the other affidavit speaks
that the investigation pertaining to the said irregularity has
not been handed over to the Vigilance Bureau (now Anti-
Corruption Bureau).
Such direction has been passed by this Court taking
into consideration the fact that the State Government and
the Central Government has given enough fund to the State
of Jharkhand so that an infrastructure can be developed in
the city of Ranchi, Dhanbad and Jamshedpur so that the
games can be conducted successfully.
For Mega Sports Complex a meeting was held under
the Chairmanship of the then Chief Minister of Jharkhand
on 16.01.2002 and developing the infrastructure 75%
funds was disbursed by the Central Government and 25%
from the State Government. The construction was to be
done by the Department of Sports and Department of
Public works, both the departments were held by the high-
[9]
ups of the State of Jharkhand, which had finalized the
tender and the work was allotted to two companies namely,
M/s Nagarjuna Company Ltd. and M/s. Lang Simplex.
It is the further case of the writ petitioner that three
times the cost of the project was revised initially i.e., from
Rs.206 crores then Rs.340 crores and finally Rs.424 crores.
The matter was raised in Jharkhand Assembly about the
finalization of the name of the Consultant and for
enhancement of cost of the project.
The Jharkhand Assembly constituted a committee
and finally the committee found that during the course of
enquiry, large scale bungling was done and fraud was
committed on various aspects in the construction of
project:-
(a) Entire cost has been enhanced as per the
international sports activities and infrastructure
seen by the Minister and his Personal Assistant
respondent no.12.
(b) The company called M/s Lang Simplex had entered
into an agreement with M/s Lang but it was only on
paper whereas Lang was a Leader Partner.
(c) The appointment of consultant was the moot
question before Vidhan Sabha Committee and there
were so many question which were to be answered
by the then Secretary of the Sports Department
satisfactorily but those were never answered.
[10]
Therefore, the committee recommended for
investigation by an independent agency.
(d) The main contractor M/s. Nagarjuna has been
selected although it stood second as per the
direction of the then Minister respondent no.11 for
reason best known to him, various reasonable
favour have been extended to this company by the
respondent 11 which is evident from the
recommendation of the Vidhan Sabha Committee.
(e) The petitioner brought this illegality to the notice of
the then advisor to the Hon'ble Governor Mr. G.
Krishnan who referred the matter to Chief Secretary
and instructed him to bring to the notice of the then
Hon'ble Governor so that legal action can be
initiated against the persons involved in the fraud
and illegality in the construction of Mega Sports
Complex.
(f) The petitioner with all relevant documents including
Vidhan Sabha Committee's report, has approached
this Hon'ble Court and the judicial orders, on 31
Jan 2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court asking the
investigating agency to complete the investigation
within eight months, but, the govt. agency has no
respect for order, has not completed the
investigation.‖
[11]
It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the
fact about commission of irregularities in the construction
of Mega Sports Complex has also been pointed out by the
office of Comptroller and Auditor General in various forms.
It is the further grievance of the writ petitioner that
in spite of recommendation made by the Vidhan Sabha
Committee for conducting investigation with regard to the
irregularity committed in finalization of tender as also
enhancement of cost of the project from Rs.206 crores to
Rs.340 crores and finally to Rs.424 crores and appointing
the consultant by changing the terms and conditions but
even in spite of the aforesaid recommendation of the
Vidhan Sabha Committee for investigation by an
independent agency, investigation has not been handed
over to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (Vigilance) and,
therefore, this writ petition has been filed.
W.P.(S) No.1580 of 2019
6. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1580 of 2019 has
also been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to hand over the investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case
No.49/2010 registered under Section 420, 120B, 467, 468,
471, 477A, 109, 409, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section
13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 to the Central
Bureau of Investigation as the investigation is not just, fair
and proper.
[12]
It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that
although the F.I.R. has been registered in the year 2010
and the allegation of embezzlement of public money is
there, but the investigation is very slow which is due to the
reason that high-ups of the State of Jharkhand are involved
in such embezzlement.
It is the further grievance of the writ petitioner that
in spite of the direction passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of 2012 dated 31.01.2014,
wherein the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were directed to
expedite the investigation of Vigilance Case No.49 of 2010
and complete the investigation at an early date, preferably
within a period of eight months, but even after lapse of
about eight years from the date of order dated 31.01.2014,
the investigation has not yet been completed.
According to the writ petitioner, the reason for non-
completion of investigation even in spite of the direction
passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL)7719 of 2012 is the high-
ups of the State of Jharkhand who are holding the prime
posts in the Government and are coming in the way,
therefore, it is a fit case wherein the matter may be handed
over to the Central Bureau of Investigation for its
investigation.
7. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, in
all the aforesaid Public Interest Litigations, have jointly submitted
[13]
that the writ petitions have been occasioned to be filed by
the writ petitioner on two grounds i.e.,
(i) Even after the recommendation made by the Vidhan
Sabha Committee to investigate the irregularity
committed in construction of Mega Sports Complex
by the Vigilance Bureau/Anti-Corruption Bureau,
no such investigation has been handed over to
Vigilance Bureau/Anti-Corruption Bureau or no
police case has been instituted for conducting
investigation.
(ii) The irregularity committed in the matter of
purchase of equipments as also the sports articles,
although has been handed over to the Anti-
Corruption Bureau but as yet the investigation has
not been completed even though there is specific
direction passed by tis Court in W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of
2012 to complete the investigation preferably within
a period of eight months.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, has
submitted that the reason is obvious in not handing over
the investigation to the special agency or even not
instituting F.I.R. for commission of irregularity in the
construction of Mega Sports Complex though on the basis
of the discussion on the floor of the Assembly a committee
was constituted wherein due recommendation was made to
get the investigation done by the special agency Vigilance
[14]
Bureau as is then was, now Anti-Corruption Bureau. Such
recommendation was made also on the basis of the
irregularity pointed out in the audit conducted by the
Comptroller and Auditor General.
Further, although the investigation has been
handed over to the Vigilance Bureau pertaining to purchase
of equipments and sports materials and to that effect an
F.I.R. has been instituted in the year 2010 being Vigilance
Case No.49 of 2010 but as yet the investigation has not
been completed even though there was a direction of this
Hon'ble Court to complete the investigation preferably
within a period of eight months.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
reason for non-completion of investigation even in spite of
the direction passed by this Court is obvious since high-
ups of the State functionary in the political side as also in
the bureaucracy are involved and that is the reason the
investigation has not been initiated so far as it relates to
construction of Mega Sports Complex and the investigation
has not been completed so far as it relates to purchase of
equipments/sports materials.
Learned counsel further submits that the
involvement of the State authorities is very obvious as even
after recommendation of the Vidhan Sabha Committee for
handing over the investigation pertaining to commission of
irregularity in the matter of construction of Mega Sports
[15]
Complex, causing huge embezzlement of public money has
not been handed over for its investigation to any agency.
Therefore, these writ petitions have been filed.
8. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State
of Jharkhand, has submitted by responding to the grounds
agitated in all the three writ petitions to the effect that it is
incorrect to say that the investigation is going very slowly,
rather, much progress is there in the investigation.
Referring to the subsequent charge-sheet submitted against
Mr. R.K.Anand and others, submission has been made that
charge-sheet has been submitted against altogether 07
accused persons and since 07 persons have already been
sent up for trial, it is incorrect to say on the part of the writ
petitioner that the investigation is slow.
The issue of maintainability of the writ petitions has
also been raised by agitating the ground that the writ
petitioners have not come before this Court with clean
hands and as such, the writ petitions are to be dismissed at
the threshold on the this ground alone.
Learned Advocate General has submitted that it is
not a fit case where investigation is required to be handed
over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, reason being
that the charge-sheet has been submitted against Mr. R.K.
Anand upon whom the allegation is there in the writ
petition that he is being shielded but the moment the
charge-sheet has been submitted against Mr. R.K.Anand,
[16]
the aforesaid allegation now does not exist and in view
thereof, the matter is not required to be handed over to the
Central Bureau of Investigation.
Further, the contention has been raised that the
matter is not required to be handed over to the Central
Bureau of Investigation since investigation itself has been
completed and once the investigation has been completed,
it cannot be said that there is any dilly-dallying tactics on
the part of the State authorities.
Learned Advocate General, in support of his
argument, has relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering
Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya
and Another [(2002) 5 SCC 521].
(ii) State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
Others [(2010) 3 SCC 571].
(iii) T. C. Thangaraj v. V. Engammal and Others
[(2011) 12 SCC 328].
(iv) K. Saravanan Karuppasamy and Another v. State
of Tamil Nadu and Others [(2014) 10 SCC 406].
(v) Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan
Mandir and Another v. State of Jharkhand and
Others [(2019) 6 SCC 777].
9. In response, learned counsel, appearing for the writ
petitioners, have submitted that so far as it relates to
[17]
maintainability of the writ petitions is concerned, the writ
petitioners are raising the genuine cause of the people since
it relates to huge embezzlement of public money in the
matter of construction of Mega Sports Complex and
purchase of sports articles.
The State respondents have accepted the alleged
irregularity committed therein since it is now the case of
the State that charge-sheet has also been submitted
against some of the accused persons and investigation is
going on so far as it relates to purchase of sports articles is
concerned and once the State is in agreement with the
contention raised by the writ petitioners in these writ
petitions, the issue of maintainability is not worth to be
considered.
Further, the State, although has filed an affidavit
before this Court on 02.09.2013 in W.P.(PIL) No. 7719 of
2012 stating therein that the investigation pertaining to
construction of Mega Sports Complex has been handed over
to the Vigilance Bureau (now Anti-corruption Bureau), but
such investigation has never been directed to be conducted
by any investigating agency and in that view of the matter,
raising the issue of maintainability is not worth
consideration.
Further, the investigation is not going on in the
right perspective, reason being that the investigation
pertaining to commission of irregularity in the matter of
[18]
Mega Sports Complex ought to have been handed over to
the agency for its investigation in order to surface the
irregularity committed in the matter of embezzlement of
public money and further, the investigation ought to have
been completed as per the direction of this Court dated
31.01.2014 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 7719 of 2012 to
complete the investigation preferably within a period of
eight months but as yet, even after lapse of about 12 years
from the date of institution of F.I.R., the investigation has
not been completed.
It has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part
of the State to take the ground that once the charge-sheet
has been submitted against some of the accused persons,
the matter cannot be handed over to independent agency,
i.e., Central Bureau of Investigation, rather, according to
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that this
Court has got ample power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India if it appears to the Court that the
investigation is not going in right perspective and there is
involvement of the high-ups of the State, both in the
political side and in the bureaucracy, then the matter can
well be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
According to the learned counsel, it is a fit case
wherein investigation is being continued for last 12 years so
far as purchase of equipments and sports material are
concerned and further, the irregularity pertaining to the
[19]
Mega Sports Complex since has not been handed over for
its investigation, the intention of the State is very clear that
they do not want a proper investigation in the matter,
reason is obvious that high-ups of the State are involved
therein.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh
v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 200] as
also in State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee
for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
Others [(2010) 3 SCC 571].
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties,
perused the documents available on record as also the
judgments relied upon on behalf of respective parties.
11. It appears from the material available on record,
more particularly, Annexure-8, appended to the writ
petition W.P.(PIL) No.1580 of 2019, that 34th National
Games was decided to be organized in the State of
Jharkhand and for the said purpose, a Memorandum of
Association was signed with an object to prepare for and
organize the 34th National Games, Ranchi as allotted by
Indian Olympic Association to Jharkhand Olympic
Association at the Annual General Body Meeting of Indian
Olympic Association held on 11th January, 2003 at New
Delhi to be organized with the support of Government of
Jharkhand.
[20]
The aforesaid Memorandum of Association
stipulates a condition as under Condition No.2(l) wherein
the main function of the Organizing Committee was to
advice the Government regarding procurement of quality
equipments and in any other matter according to Host City
Contract for conduct of National Games on the advice of
Indian Olympic Association, GTCC and the National Sports
Federation whose events will be organized during 34th
National Games, Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Dhanbad.
It further appears from the aforesaid Memorandum
of Association that the Executive Board has also been
constituted which consists of eight persons namely:-
Sl. Name of the Address Occupation Designation
No. Member of the in the Society
Member
1 Sri Madhu Koda Chief Minister, Chairman
Govt. of
Jharkhand
2 Sri R.K.Anand Ex. MP(RS), Sr. Working
Advocate & Chairman
President IOA
3 Sri Bandhu Tirkey Sports Minister Senior Vice
Chairman
4 Sri A.K.Basu Chief Secretary, Vice Chairman
Jharkhand
5 Sri S.M. Hashmi Secretary Organising
General, JOA Secretary (I)
6 Sri R.S.Verma Secretary Sports Organising
Secretary II
(Infrastructure)
7 Sri M.K. Pathak Treasurer, JOA Treasurer
8 Sri P.C. Mishra Director, Dept. Director
of Sports
It appears from Annexure-7 to the writ petition that
the meeting of Executive Board of National Games
Organizing Committee was held on 21.11.2008 at NGOC
Secretariat, Morabadi, Ranchi under the Chairmanship of
Sri Shibu Soren, Chairman, NGOC and Hon'ble Chief
[21]
Minister, Jharkhand. It appears from the same that the
members who have participated in the meeting for
organizing the 34th National Games were Sri R.K.Anand, Ex
MP, Working Chairman, NGOC, Sri Bandhu Tirkey, Sr. Vice
Chairman, NGOC and Minister of Sports, Sri S.M. Hashmi,
Organising Secretary-I, NGOC, Sri R.S.Verma, Organising
Secretary-II, NGOC, Sri P.C. Mishra, Director, NGOC, Sri
M.K.Pathak, Treasurer, NGOC and Smt. Shilpi Saxena,
Executive Board Member, NGOC.
It further appears from Notification dated
19.04.2008, appended as Annexure-9 to the writ petition,
that for the purpose of purchase of important materials,
decision was taken to purchase it by inviting tender and for
that purpose, a Special Committee was constituted on
25.02.2008 but subsequent thereto, the same was again
reconstituted vide Notification dated 19.04.2008 consisting
of the following functionaries :-
1. Secretary, Department of Culture, Sports and Youth
Affairs - President
2. Director, Department of Culture, Sports and Youth
Affairs - Member
3. Representative of Finance Department - Member
4. Representative of Vigilance Department - Member
5. Representative of Industry Department - member
6. Organizing Secretary-I, NGOC - Member
7. Incharge Officer of SAI, Ranchi - Member
[22]
8. Treasurer, NGOC - Member
Admittedly, the 34th National Games has been
decided to be organized by the State of Jharkhand with the
collaboration of the Indian Olympic Association and
Jharkhand Olympic Association.
It is also evident from the record, more particularly,
the pleading of the writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of
2018, that for the purpose of convening the aforesaid
National Games, a Mega Sports Complex was also decided
to be constructed and accordingly, constructed.
The games were held, but subsequent thereto, the
issue of embezzlement of public money was
raised which led to institution of F.I.R. being Vigilance Case
No.49 of 2010 against the organizers of the 34th National
Games.
It requires to refer herein that after conclusion of
the 34th National Games, the office of the Accountant
General, Jharkhand conducted audit and pointed out
financial irregularities as per the Audit Report contained in
Memo No.IR No.OAD-Nc-241/2009-10 to the tune of
Rs.28,38,09,000/- in conducting the 34th National Games,
as would appear from the document appended in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State on 09.01.2019
as under Annexure-A. For ready reference, the extract of
relevant paragraph is referred hereinbelow :-
[23]
―That the Audit Report of Accountant General,
Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Memo No.IR No.OAD-Nc-
241/2009-10 had also pointed financial irregularities
to the tune of Rs.28,38,09,000/- (Twenty eight crores
thirty eight lakhs nine thousand) in conducting the
34th National Games.‖
It appears from the documents appended with the
interlocutory application being I.A. No.1948 of 2022 filed in
W.P.(PIL) No.7176 of 2017 that on 30.11.2019 charge-sheet
has been submitted against Bandhu Tirkey and R.K.Anand
and still the investigation is going on.
It further appears that the Chairman of the
Organizing Committee, during the relevant time, was
Mr. Shibu Soren, as also he was Chief Minister of the State
of Jharkhand. The names of the high-ups of the Police
administration and the bureaucrats have also surfaced
along with the Ministers concerned. The investigation has
not proceeded in the right direction, rather, the dilly-
dallying tactics was there and, therefore, a Public Interest
Litigation was filed being W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of 2012 wherein
the Division Bench of this Court passed order on
31.01.2014 wherein at paragraph 8 specific direction was
passed for conclusion of investigation pertaining to
Vigilance Case No.49 of 2010 at an early date, preferably
within a period of eight months.
The writ petitioner of W.P.(PIL) No. 5788 of 2018
had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition
being W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of 2012 wherein, this Court has
[24]
directed the Vigilance Bureau (now Anti-Corruption
Bureau) to complete the investigation in the construction of
Mega Sports Complex also, but very surprisingly, although
investigation pertaining to purchase of sports equipments
has been directed to be investigated by instituting Vigilance
Case No.49/2010, but so far as the construction of Mega
Sports Complex is concerned, no such investigation has
been directed to be conducted either by the State Police or
by the Vigilance Bureau (now Anti-Corruption Bureau).
It further appears from the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the Sports Department on 02.09.2013 and
17.09.2013, that the stand taken therein are contradictory
to each other as one affidavit speaks about the fact that
investigation pertaining to commission of irregularities in
the construction of Mega Sports Complex has been handed
over to then Vigilance Bureau whereas the other affidavit
speaks that the investigation pertaining to the said
irregularity has not been handed over to the Vigilance
Bureau (now Anti-Corruption Bureau).
Such direction was given by this Court taking into
consideration the fact that the State Government and the
Central Government had given enough fund to the State of
Jharkhand so that an infrastructure can be developed in
the city of Ranchi, Dhanbad and Jamshedpur so that the
games can be conducted successfully.
[25]
It further appears that for Mega Sports Complex a
meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the then Chief
Minister of Jharkhand on 16.01.2002 and developing the
infrastructure 75% funds was disbursed by the Central
Government and 25% from the State Government. The
construction was to be done by the Department of Sports
and Department of Public works, both the departments
were held by the high-ups of the State of Jharkhand, which
had finalized the tender and the work was allotted to two
companies namely, M/s Nagarjuna Company Ltd. and M/s.
Lang Simplex.
It also appears that three times the cost of the
project was revised initially i.e., from Rs.206 crores then
Rs.340 crores and finally Rs.424 crores. The matter was
raised in Jharkhand Assembly about the finalization of the
name of the Consultant and for enhancement of cost of the
project.
The Jharkhand Assembly constituted a committee
and finally the committee found that during the course of
enquiry, large scale bungling was done and fraud was
committed on various aspects in the construction of
project.
No endeavour has been taken to get the matter
investigated through any agency pertaining to
embezzlement of public money in the matter of construction
of Mega Sports Complex.
[26]
12. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and appreciating their rival submissions as also on
perusal of relevant documents appended to the respective
affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, is required to answer
following issues :-
(i) Whether these writ petitions are maintainable at
the behest of the writ petitioners?
(ii) Whether it is a fit case where the investigation is
required to be handed over to the Central Bureau
of Investigation.
Issue No.(i)
13. This Court, in order to answer the issue about
maintainability, deems it fit and proper to refer certain
judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
There is no dispute about the fact that a person who
comes to the Court for relief in public interest, must come
not only with the clean hands like any other writ petition
but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective,
as has been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ramjas Foundation and Others v. Union of India and
Others, [AIR 1993 SC 852] (Para 7) and K. R. Srinivas v.
R.M. Premchand and Others [(1994) 6 SCC 620] (Para 7).
It is necessary to take note of the meaning of
expression 'public interest litigation'. In Strouds Judicial
Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest'
is defined thus:
[27]
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or
general interest does not mean that which
is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of
information or amusement but that in which a class of the
community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition),
"public interest" is defined as follows :
"Public Interest something in which the public, or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities,
which may be affected by the matters in
question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others,
[(1992) 4 SCC 305], the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the
scope of Public Interest Litigation and at para 52 of the said
judgment. After considering what is ‗Public Interest' it has
been laid down as follows :-
52. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th edn.), ‗public
interest' is defined as follows:
―Public Interest -- Something in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as
mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular
localities, which may be affected by the matters in
question. Interest shared by citizens generally in
affairs of local, state or national government ....‖
[28]
At paragraph 53 the Hon'ble Apex Court has defined the
expression ‗litigation' which is quoted hereunder:-
"53. The expression ‗litigation' means a legal action
including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of
law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a
remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ‗PIL' means
a legal action initiated in a court of law for the
enforcement of public interest or general interest in
which the public or a class of the community have
pecuniary interest or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected. There is a host of
decisions explaining the expression ‗PIL' in its wider
connotation in the present day context in modern
society, a few of which we will refer to in the
appropriate part of this judgment.‖
At para 62 of the said judgment it was pointed out
that "be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the
requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is
mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any
litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any
specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at
the threshold."
At para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been
observed that "while this Court has laid down a chain of
notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about
the importance and significance of this newly-developed
doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and
a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its
process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome
interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any
[29]
interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit
or other oblique consideration."
In subsequent paragraphs of the said judgment it
has been held that "it is thus clear that only a person acting
bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of
PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the
court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering
from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person
for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any
oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under
the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any
personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold".
It has further been propounded that the Public
Interest Litigation is a weapon which has to be used with
great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of
public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest
and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as
an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering
social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of
public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious
products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of
genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity
oriented or founded on personal vendetta.
As indicated above, Court must be careful to see
that a body of persons or member of public, who
[30]
approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for
personal gain or private motive or political motivation or
other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked
phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some
persons with vested interest indulge in the past time of
meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or
from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as
well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a
desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of
such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at
the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary
costs.
Therefore, the Court has to be satisfied about the
credentials of the applicant; the prima facie correctness or
nature of information given by him; and the information
being not vague and indefinite.
In Sujatha Ravi Kiran alias Sujatasahu v. State
of Kerala and Others [(2016) 7 SCC 597] the Hon'ble
Apex Court at paragraph 11 has laid down following
propositions which read as under :-
―11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand, in the light of the above principles, we
are of the view that the case in hand does not entail a
direction for transferring the investigation from the
State police/special team of State police officers to
CBI. The facts and circumstances in which the offence
is alleged to have been committed can be better
[31]
investigated into by the State police. However, having
regard to the nature of allegations levelled by the
petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the State of
Kerala to constitute a special team of police officers
headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy
Inspector General of Police to investigate the matter.‖
In K. V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police,
CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Others [(2013) 12 SCC
480], it has been held that the Court could exercise its
constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from
the State investigating agency to any other independent
investigating agency only in rare and exceptional cases.
Such as where high officials of State authorities are
involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials
of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to
influence the investigation, and to instil confidence in the
investigation.
In Bimal Gurung v. Union of India and Others
[(2018) 15 SCC 480], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare
and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in
order to do justice between the parties to instil confidence
in the public mine. The relevant paragraph of the said
judgment is quoted hereunder :-
―29. The law is thus well settled that power of
transferring investigation to other investigating agency
must be exercised in rare and exceptional cases where
the court finds it necessary in order to do justice
between the parties to instil confidence in the public
mind, or where investigation by the State Police lacks
[32]
credibility. Such power has to be exercised in rare and
exceptional cases. In K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of
Police [K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, (2013) 12 SCC
480] , this Court has noted few circumstances where
the Court could exercise its constitutional power to
transfer of investigation from State Police to CBI such
as : (i) where high officials of State authorities are
involved, or (ii) where the accusation itself is against
the top officials of the investigating agency thereby
allowing them to influence the investigation, or (iii)
where investigation prima facie is found to be
tainted/biased.‖
In State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee
for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
Others (Supra), the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court has considered at length the power of High Court to
direct investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation into
a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of a State and while taking the
view that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226
of the Constitution, cautioned that the Court must bear in
mind certain self-imposed limitations. Paragraph 70 of the
said judgment is quoted hereunder :-
―70. Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers
conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution,
while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind
certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of
these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the
power under the said articles requires great caution in
its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a
direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is
concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be
[33]
laid down to decide whether or not such power should
be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated
that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of
routine or merely because a party has levelled some
allegations against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in
exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have national
and international ramifications or where such an order
may be necessary for doing complete justice and
enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI
would be flooded with a large number of cases and
with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly
investigate even serious cases and in the process lose
its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory
investigations.‖
It is evident from the bare reading of the judicial
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred
hereinabove, that the Court could exercise its constitutional
power for transferring any investigation from the State
Investigating Agency to any other investigating agency only
in rare and exceptional circumstances.
Further, it appears that such power can be
exercised by the Court when it is necessary in order to do
justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the
public mind. The credentials of the writ petitioner is also
required to be seen in order to frustrate frivolous litigation
which is filed in the garb of Public Interest Litigation.
14. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid judicial
pronouncements, is now proceeding to examine the
[34]
objection raised about the maintainability of the writ
petitions.
The instant writ petition (W.P.(PIL) No. 7176 of
2017) has been filed by one Sushil Kumar Singh wherein
the writ petitioner discloses himself to be citizen of India
and is entitled to get protection and enforcement of rights
guaranteed and envisaged in the Constitution of India.
These writ petitions were filed in the year 2017,
2018 and 2019.
It appears from the order dated 14.12.2018 passed
in the instant writ petition (W.P.(PIL) No.7176 of 2017) that
the State was directed to file response to the writ petition.
Response was filed on behalf of the State on 09.01.2019,
25.03.2022 and 02.04.2022.
We have perused the affidavits filed on behalf of the
State respondent concerned and found therefrom that no
stand has been taken about the maintainability of the writ
petition, rather averment has been made that the trial is in
progress.
We have also found that there is no affidavit filed on
behalf of the State in W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of 2018 and
W.P.(PIL) No.1580 of 2019.
The question of raising the issue of maintainability
has been raised orally but without any pleading. In the
affidavit filed in W.P.(PIL) No. 7176 of 2017 the State has
accepted the maintainability of the writ petition and that is
[35]
the reason this Court has been apprised with the progress
in the investigation.
Further, the writ petitioner of W.P.(PIL) No. 5788 of
2018 had earlier filed another P.I.L., being W.P.(PIL)
No.7719 of 2012, record of which has been appended as
Annexure-1, in the counter affidavit filed to the aforesaid
P.I.L. (W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of 2012) the issue of filing the
P.I.L. by the writ petitioner has not been raised questioning
the issue of maintainability, rather the Court has been
apprised that the investigation has been decided to be
handed over to the Vigilance Bureau pertaining to the
construction of the Mega Sports Complex and further, so
far as the irregularity committed in the matter of purchase
of equipments/sports materials is concerned, the matter
has been handed over to the Vigilance Bureau being
Vigilance Case No.49/2010.
Further, the writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of
2012, which was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner of
W.P.(PIL) No. 5788 of 2018, was disposed of by a
Coordinate Division Bench of this Court wherein direction
was sought for to order vigilance enquiry in the matter of
construction of Mega Sports Complex. In that case also the
issue of maintainability was raised. While dealing with the
same, the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court had
passed an order discarding the issue of maintainability on
the ground of credentials of the writ petitioner and
[36]
considering the stand of the State taken in the counter
affidavit that the matter is being investigated by the
Vigilance Bureau, direction was issued upon the concerned
respondents to expedite and conclude the investigation of
Vigilance Case No.49/2010.
This Court, therefore, is of the view that the issue of
credentials of the writ petitioner which is being raised on
behalf of the respondents, is not worth to be considered at
this stage, that too, when the State itself has handed over
the investigation to the Vigilance Bureau and the State is
now coming with the plea that the investigation is at the
verge of completion, meaning thereby, whatever fact has
been brought to the notice of this Court by way of these
three writ petitions, the same cannot be said to be based
upon malice and the petitions cannot be said to have been
filed with ulterior motive since it is the State which has
handed over the investigation to the Vigilance Bureau so far
as it relates to purchase of equipments/sports materials.
Once the State has accepted the stand of the writ
petitioner and has apprised this Court about the
investigation having been conducted, it is not available to
the State to raise the issue of maintainability on the ground
of credentials of the writ petitioner. More so, on earlier
occasion also, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court
has passed order on 31.01.2014 in W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of
2012 directing the concerned respondents to conclude the
[37]
investigation of Vigilance Case No.49/2010 preferably
within a period of eight months.
The question of credentials of the writ petitioner can
only be allowed to be raised when the State is doubting
with respect to the averments on which the writ petition
has been filed. In the case in hand, no doubt has been
expressed, rather, the ground which has been raised for
conducting investigation has been admitted by the State
and that is the reason this Court has been apprised that
the matter has been handed over to the Vigilance Bureau,
now Anti-Corruption Bureau. The investigation is going on
as also the charge-sheets have been submitted against
some of the accused persons, meaning thereby, the State is
also of the view that irregularity has been committed and
that is the reason charge-sheet against some of the accused
persons has been submitted.
Further, even the matter has been discussed in the
Jharkhand Legislative Assembly and after detailed
discussion, a committee has been constituted i.e., Vidhan
Sabha Committee. The Vidhan Sabha Committee made
recommendation to constitute a High Level Committee and
pursuant thereto, a High Level Committee was constituted
under the Chairmanship of the Development Commissioner
and thereafter the matter was handed over to the Vigilance
Bureau for investigation so far as it relates to purchase of
equipments/sports material and, therefore, the writ
[38]
petitioner cannot be thrown out on the ground of lack of
credentials since the State is not disputing the allegation,
rather, the decision has been taken to hand over the
investigation to the investigating agency.
This Court, therefore, on the basis of the discussion
made hereinabove, is of the view that the issue of
maintainability of these writ petitions filed by way of public
interest litigation, on the ground of lack of credentials of the
writ petitioners, is not worth to be considered and
accordingly, the same is rejected.
Accordingly, Issue No.(i) is answered.
Issue No.(ii)
15. This Court, after holding the writ petitions to be
maintainable, is now required to answer as to whether it is
a fit case where the matter is required to be handed over to
the independent agency i.e., Central Bureau of
Investigation.
It is not in dispute that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
the judgments referred hereinabove, has propounded the
proposition of law to hand over the investigation to the
Central Bureau of Investigation though with utmost care
but simultaneously it has been held that in order to
maintain confidence of the people and to secure the interest
of the people at large, the constitutional court is competent
enough to hand over the investigation to Central Bureau of
Investigation.
[39]
Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State
of Jharkhand, has vehemently submitted that since the
charge-sheet has been submitted against some of the
accused persons and the investigation is likely to be
concluded very soon, as such, it cannot a fit case to hand
over the investigation to an independent agency i.e., Central
Bureau of Investigation.
We are not in agreement with such
argument/submission, reason being that admittedly the
F.I.R. has been instituted in the year 2010 so far as it
relates to purchase of sports articles are concerned. The
investigation has continued for a period of 12 years and is
still continuing even though there is specific direction of
this Court to conclude the investigation preferably within
the period of eight months.
It is not in dispute so far as legal position is
concerned that if any investigation is set at motion on
institution of criminal case, as per the procedure laid down
under the Cr.P.C., it has to be concluded at an early date
and if the investigation has been dragged fairly for a long
period to extend benefit to the person(s) who are involved in
the crime, the concerned, who are involved in dragging the
investigation to aid such persons, are equally responsible
for extending the illegal relief to such persons who are
involved in the crime.
[40]
Admittedly the bureaucrats, both police as well as
the administration, during the relevant time, are required
to be questioned as to why the investigation has dragged for
a period of 12 years.
Further, the investigation pertaining to the
construction of Mega Sports Complex is admittedly has not
been handed over to any agency, which also suggests the
possibility that due to involvement of high-ups, such
benefit has been extended to the persons concerned who
are involved in the crime.
In view thereof, the argument which has been
advanced on behalf of the State in this regard, is not worth
consideration.
However, the question of handing over the
investigation to independent agency, like Central Bureau of
Investigation, after submission of charge-sheet fell for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Others
(Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased
to hold that investigation can be handed over to Central
Bureau of Investigation even after submission of charge-
sheet and commencement of trial. The relevant paragraphs
of the said judgment is paragraphs, 51, 52, 53, 54, 60 and
61 which are being quoted hereunder :-
51. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the parties and after going through the
eight action taken reports submitted by the police
[41]
authorities before this Court and after considering the
decisions of this Court cited at the Bar and the
materials on record and considering the nature of
offence sought to be investigated by the State police
authorities who are themselves involved in such crime,
we are unable to accept that the investigation at this
stage cannot be handed over to the CBI Authorities or
any other independent agency. We have already
discussed the decisions cited by Mr Mukul Rohatgi,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of
Gujarat and have already distinguished the said cases
and came to a conclusion that those decisions were
rendered when CBI enquiries have already been made
and at that stage this Court held that after the charge-
sheet is submitted, the CBI Authorities would not be
able to approach this Court or the High Court to have
issuance of directions from this Court.
52. In R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC
143] on which reliance was placed by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, this
Court observed: (SCC pp. 144-45, para 2)
―2. ... We have perused the events that have
taken place since the incidents but we are
refraining from entering upon the details thereof
lest it may prejudice any party but we think
that since the accusations are directed against the
local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust
the investigation to an independent agency like the
Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned
including the relatives of the deceased may feel
assured that an independent agency is looking into
the matter and that would lend the final outcome of
the investigation credibility. However faithfully the
local police may carry out the investigation, the same
will lack credibility since the allegations are against
them. It is only with that in mind that we having
thought it both advisable and desirable as well as
in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation
to the Central Bureau of Investigation....‖
(emphasis supplied)
[42]
This decision clearly helps the writ petitioner for
handing over the investigation to the CBI Authorities
or any other independent agency.
53. It is an admitted position in the present case that
the accusations are directed against the local police
personnel in which the high police officials of the State
of Gujarat have been made the accused. Therefore, it
would be proper for the writ petitioner or even the
public to come forward to say that if the investigation
carried out by the police personnel of the State of
Gujarat is done, the writ petitioner and their family
members would be highly prejudiced and the
investigation would also not come to an end with
proper finding and if investigation is allowed to be
carried out by the local police authorities, we feel that
all concerned including the relatives of the deceased
may feel that investigation was not proper and in that
circumstances it would be fit and proper that the writ
petitioner and the relatives of the deceased should be
assured that an independent agency should look into
the matter and that would lend the final outcome of
the investigation credibility however faithfully the local
police may carry out the investigation, particularly
when the gross allegations have been made against the
high police officials of the State of Gujarat and for
which some high police officials have already been
taken into custody.
54. It is also well known that when police officials of
the State were involved in the crime and in fact they
are investigating the case, it would be proper and
interest of justice would be better served if the
investigation is directed to be carried out by the CBI
Authorities, in that case CBI Authorities would be an
appropriate authority to investigate the case.
60. Therefore, in view of our discussions made
hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of
Mr Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State of Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is
submitted in the court in the criminal proceeding it
[43]
was not open for this Court or even for the High Court
to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to
CBI or to any independent agency. Therefore, it can
safely be concluded that in an appropriate case when
the court feels that the investigation by the police
authorities is not in the proper direction and in order
to do complete justice in the case and as the high
police officials are involved in the said crime, it was
always open to the court to hand over the investigation
to the independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said
that after the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is
not empowered, in an appropriate case, to hand over
the investigation to an independent agency like CBI.
61. Keeping this discussion in mind, that is to say, in
an appropriate case, the court is empowered to hand
over the investigation to an independent agency like
CBI even when the charge-sheet has been submitted,
we now deal with the facts of this case whether such
investigation should be transferred to the CBI
Authorities or any other independent agency in spite of
the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted in
court. On this ground, we have carefully examined the
eight action taken reports submitted by the State
police authorities before us and also the various
materials produced and the submissions of the
learned counsel for both the parties.‖
It is evident from perusal of the aforesaid judgment
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court on not being satisfied with
the investigation, after going through the charge-sheet, has
considered the case fit to be handed over to the Central
Bureau of Investigation and accordingly, the investigation
was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
16. Admittedly, as per the material available on record
and more particularly, the reflection which is being made
from the order dated 31.01.2014 passed in W.P.(PIL)
[44]
No.7719 of 2012, is that there was irregularity in
construction of Mega Sports complex which is the subject
matter of the writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of 2018
and for which writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of 2012
was filed. In that case counter affidavit was filed by the
respondent State which has been appended as Annexure-1
to W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of 2018. A stand inter alia was taken
by the State making reference of commission of irregularity
in the matter of construction of Mega Sports Complex and
levelling allegation of three times increase in the cost of the
project i.e., the cost has been increased to Rs.206 crores,
then Rs.340 crores and finally Rs.424 crores. The aforesaid
matter was raised in the Jharkhand Assembly specially
about finalization of consultant and enhancement of the
cost of the project.
The Jharkhand Assembly constituted a committee
and finally the committee found during the course of
enquiry that large scale bungling was done and fraud was
committed on various aspects in the construction of project
as would appear from paragraph 2 of W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of
2018, in which the statement made has not been rebutted,
since no counter affidavit has been filed. Same is summarised
as under:-
(a) The cost has been enhanced as per the international
sports activities and infrastructure seen by the
Minister and his Personal Assistant.
[45]
(b) The company called M/s Lang Simplex had entered
into an agreement with M/s Lang but it was only on
paper whereas Lang was a Leader Partner.
(c) The appointment of consultant was the moot
question before Vidhan Sabha Committee and there
were so many question which was to be answered
by the then Secretary of the Sports Department
satisfactorily but that has not been answered.
Therefore, the committee recommended for
investigation by an independent agency.
(d) The main contractor M/s. Nagarjuna has been
selected although it stood second as per the
direction of the then Minister for reason best known
to him, various reasonable favour have been
extended to this company which is evident from the
recommendation of the Vidhan Sabha Committee.
(e) The petitioner brought this illegality to the notice of
the then advisor to the Hon'ble Governor Mr. G.
Krishnan who referred the matter to Chief Secretary
and instructed him to bring to the notice of the then
Hon'ble Governor so that legal action can be
initiated against the persons involved in the fraud
and illegality in the construction of Mega Sports
Complex.
(f) The petitioner with all relevant documents including
Vidhan Sabha Committee's report, has approached
[46]
this Hon'ble Court and the judicial orders, on 31
Jan 2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court asking the
investigating agency to complete the investigation
within eight months, but, the govt. agency has no
respect for order, has not completed the
investigation.
The Vidhan Sabha Committee recommended for
investigation by an independent agency i.e. by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau (Vigilance) or Central Bureau of
Investigation because the Anti-Corruption Bureau is
under the State Government but the respondent State of
Jharkhand did not follow the aforesaid recommendation
and, therefore, the writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.7719
of 2012 was filed.
In the counter affidavit dated 02.09.2013, sworn by
Chandra Mohan Prasad Kashyap, who was holding the
post of Deputy Secretary, Art, Culture, Sports and Youth
Affairs Department, Jharkhand, as under Annexure-1 to
W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of 2018, wherein the State took the
pleat at paragraph 27 which is very peculiar, reason
being that every aspect of the matter i.e.,
recommendation made by the Vidhan Sabha Committee
to hand over the investigation to the Vigilance Bureau
(now Anti-Corruption Bureau) and the State has admitted
at paragraph 17 of the aforesaid counter affidavit by
making a statement that the Government is duty bound
[47]
to implement the recommendation of Vidhan Sabha
Committee. Further, it has been stated in the said
paragraph that the matter was handed over to the
Vigilance Bureau for detailed investigation of the matter.
For ready reference, paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit
(Annexure-1) is being referred hereunder :-
―17. That in reply to para 3 it is stated that the
Govt. is duty bound to implement the
recommendation of Vidhan Sabha Committee
and on the direction of Hon'ble Court, the matter
was handed over to the Vigilance Bureau for
detailed investigation of the matter.‖
Further, from the statement made at paragraph 19
of the aforesaid counter affidavit, it is evident that the
Government has already handed over the investigation to
the Vigilance Bureau and all records have been made
available to the Bureau.
At paragraph 35 it has been stated that the
investigation has already been handed over to the Vigilance
Bureau and direction has been given to conclude the
investigation at the earliest.
At paragraph 39, it has been stated that the matter
pertaining to finalization of the tender, consultant etc. in
the construction of the Mega Sports Complex has already
been handed over to the Vigilance. For ready reference
paragraph 39 is being quoted hereunder :-
―39. That in reply to para 15 it is stated that the
matter has already been handed to the vigilance
[48]
bureau for detailed investigation in the finalization of
the tender, consultant etc in the construction of the
Mega Sports Complex.‖
This Court has found from the another affidavit filed
on 17.09.2013, as has been appended as Annexure-1/A in
W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of 2018, sworn by Ram Nandan Sharma,
who was holding the post of Deputy superintendent of
Police, Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand wherein at paragraph
5 it has been stated that no such petition has been received
by the answering respondent and the answering respondent
is not conducting any investigation save and except
Vigilance Case No.49/2010 which relates to purchase of
sports articles in National Games, 2010. The aforesaid
paragraph is quoted hereunder :-
―5. That it is humbly stated and submitted that no
such petition has been received by the answering
respondent and the answering respondent is not
conducting any investigation save and except
Vigilance Case No.49/2010, which relates to purchase
of sports articles in National Games, 2010.‖
17. This Court has found that at the one hand the State
has filed an affidavit through Deputy Secretary, Art,
Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs Department, Jharkhand,
as under Annexure-1 to W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of 2018,
apprising the Court regarding the matter pertaining to
construction of Mega Sports Complex having been handed
over to the Vigilance Bureau on the basis of the
recommendation of the Vidhan Sabha Committee but very
[49]
surprisingly, on the other hand the Deputy superintendent of
Police, Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand, in its affidavit dated
17.09.2013, as under Annexure-1/A to W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of
2018, has stated that no such application has been received
in the office of the Vigilance Bureau to investigate about the
irregularities committed in the matter of construction of Mega
Sports Complex, save and except Vigilance Case No.49/2010
which relates to purchase of sports articles.
Therefore, it prima facie appears that the State
authorities have misled this Court by giving incorrect
statement about investigation of commission of irregularity
in the matter of construction of Mega Sports Complex
which has been handed over to the Vigilance Bureau, basis
upon which this Court has passed order on 31.01.2014 in
W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of 2012, appended as Annexure-2 to
W.P.(PIL) No.5788 of 2018, accepting the statement of the
State that the matter pertaining to construction of Mega
Sports Complex has also been handed over to the Vigilance
Bureau giving a picture that the Vigilance Case No.49/2010
also pertains to the same. This was the reason, the
Coordinate Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of
the writ petition, at paragraph 8 thereof, directed that
investigation of Vigilance Case No.49/2010 be completed
preferably within a period of eight months.
It further appears from paragraph 1 of the aforesaid
order wherein reference of prayer made in the aforesaid writ
[50]
petition being W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of 2012, has been made
which was filed to order vigilance enquiry in the
construction of Mega Sports Complex, meaning thereby, a
picture was projected before this Court that the matter of
investigation pertaining to construction of Mega Sports
Complex is also the subject matter of Vigilance Case
No.49/2010.
From the aforesaid fact it is very much clear that
the stand of the State that Vigilance Case No.49/2010 has
got nothing to do with the irregularity committed in the
matter of construction of Mega Sports Complex, rather, the
same pertains to the purchase of equipments/sports
material only, as would appear from the averment made by
the State in the affidavit filed on 09.01.2019, 25.03.2022
and 02.04.2022.
Further, it is evident from paragraph-5 of the
affidavit dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure-1/A to W.P.(PIL)
No.5788 of 2018) that the matter pertaining to investigation
of commission of irregularity in the matter of construction
of Mega Sports Complex is not the subject matter of
Vigilance Case No.49/2010.
It further appears from the status report relating to
Vigilance Case No.49/2010 corresponding to Special Case
No.66/2010, appended as Annexure-A to the affidavit filed
on behalf of the State respondent dated 09.01.2019
wherein Vigilance Case No.49/2010 has been said to be
[51]
related to the irregularity committed in procurement of the
sports goods for 34th National Games held at Ranchi. For
ready reference, the very first paragraph of the said status
report is being referred hereunder :-
―That, this Vigilance P.S. case no.-49/10, dated
- 06.10.10, u/s- 406/409/420/467/468/471/
120(B)/109 I.P.C., & section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on
the basis of written complain of Sri Bhola Nath Singh
S/O Yamuna Prasad Singh, R/O Near Phool Baba
Ashram, Lake road, Ranchi against 1. Sri R.K.Anana,
the then Working Chairman, 2. Sri Saiyed Matloob
Hashmi, the then organizing Secretary, 3. Sri Prakash
Chandra Mishra, the then Director, Department of
Sports, Government of Jharkhand, 4. Sri Madhukant
Pathak the then treasurer all officials of NGOC. The
F.I.R. is related to the irregularities in Procurement of
sports goods for 34th National Games held at Ranchi in
the year 2011.‖
It further appears from the status report that the
audit report of the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi
had pointed out financial irregularities to the tune of
Rs.28,38,09,000/- in conducting the 34th National Games.
Thus, it is evident that the Vigilance Case
No.49/2010 only pertains to commission of irregularities
and embezzlement of public money in the matter of
purchase of sports articles.
It is clear that no investigation pertaining to
embezzlement of public money in the matter of construction
of Mega Sports Complex has ever been handed over for
investigation by the Vigilance Bureau and, as such, the
[52]
State authorities sitting in the helms of affairs as also
political leaders who may be involved in the matter of
organizing the 34th National Games, appears to have
managed the things by not handing over the investigation
to Vigilance Bureau in the matter of construction of Mega
Sports Complex.
Further, even the persons at the helms of affairs
i.e., political as well as high-ups in the bureaucracy, have
duped the Court by filing false affidavit regarding handing
over the investigation pertaining to construction of Mega
sports Complex to the Vigilance Bureau while the
functionary of investigating agency itself has stated before
this Court that no such investigation has been handed over
to the Vigilance Bureau.
18. The second aspect of the matter that even the
investigation of Vigilance Case No.49/2010, in spite of
specific direction passed by this Court to complete the
investigation preferably within the period of eight months,
has not been completed, however, submission has been
made on the basis of the statement made in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the charge-sheet
has been submitted against certain erring officials/persons,
but the investigation is still going on. The question is that
in a matter of embezzlement of public money for which
F.I.R. was instituted sometime in the year 2010,
investigation could not proceed properly, in consequence
[53]
thereof, a writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.7719 of 2012 was
filed and considering the delay in investigation as also
considering the huge amount of embezzlement of public
money, this Court had directed to conclude the
investigation preferably within a period of eight months vide
order dated 31.01.2014 but even after lapse of more than
eight years from the date of passing of such order, the
investigation is still going on.
This Court is of the view that investigation in the
criminal case cannot be allowed to be continued till
eternity, rather, the investigation is required to be
completed at an early date but in the case in hand, despite
the order passed by this Court, investigation has not been
completed, rather, it has been allowed to be continued and
still it is continuing. This puts a serious question mark
upon the investigating agency, the officials and all high-
ups.
It has been informed to this Court that the matter is
being investigated pertaining to Vigilance Case No.49/2010
and a serious allegation has been levelled against one high
police official who is now in the helms of affairs of the Anti-
Corruption Bureau, being its head.
It has further been informed to this Court that high
bureaucrats now heading the Departments, were also part
of that organizing committee and that is the reason the
investigation is being delayed.
[54]
19. This Court, at this juncture, deems it fit and proper
to deal with the judgments upon which reliance has been
placed by the learned Advocate General in support of his
argument.
(i) So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural
Engineering Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram
Arya and Another [(2002) 5 SCC 521] is concerned, it is
evident from the said judgment that the proposition has
been laid down that merely because a party made allegation
against a person, High Court cannot direct CBI to
investigate as to whether a person committed an offence, as
alleged or not.
This Court, on perusal of factual aspect involved
therein, is of the view that on facts the judgment is not
applicable, reason being that here the State itself is
admitting that the public money has been embezzled and
that is the reason Vigilance Case No.49/2010 has been
instituted, in which the investigation is going on.
Further, on the basis of the recommendation of
Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, consideration has been
made about embezzlement of public money in the matter of
construction of Mega Sports Complex and to that effect an
affidavit has also been filed that the matter has been
handed over to the Vigilance Bureau but very surprisingly,
no such endeavour has been made to hand over the
[55]
investigation. Therefore, it is not a case where merely on
the basis of allegation of a person the direction has been
sought for to hand over the investigation to the CBI.
Therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the
facts of this case.
(ii) So far as the judgment rendered in State of West
Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others [(2010) 3
SCC 571] is concerned, this Court, on perusal of the said
judgment is of the view that the said judgment has mainly
considered the power of the High Court as to whether the
investigation in a particular case can be handed over to the
CBI in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The Calcutta High Court, taking into consideration
the fact that involvement of high police officials in the crime
is there, therefore, handed over the matter to the CBI and
the Hon'ble Apex Court, on consideration of the
constitutional provision about basic structure of the
Constitution of India, has approved the view of the Calcutta
High Court.
Herein also, on perusal of the documents available
on record and as per the discussion made hereinabove,
there is involvement of high-ups of the Police
Administration as also the bureaucrats as well as the
political leaders, therefore, applying the principle laid down
[56]
in the judgment rendered in State of West Bengal and
Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, West Bengal and Others (Supra), it is a fit case
where the matter is required to be handed over to the CBI.
(iii) So far as the judgments rendered in T. C.
Thangaraj v. V. Engammal and Others [(2011) 12 SCC
328] and in K. Saravanan Karuppasamy and Another v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Others [(2014) 10 SCC 406]
are concerned, the proposition has been laid down that the
High Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is required to exercise such power
only sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations.
There is no dispute that each and every case cannot
be handed over to the CBI by the High Court, rather, such
power can only be exercised only sparingly, cautiously and
in exceptional situations.
This Court, on the basis of the discussion made
hereinabove and more particularly filing incorrect affidavit
before this Court about investigation being handed over to
the Vigilance Bureau pertaining to construction of Mega
Sports Complex and continuation of investigation
pertaining to purchase of sports articles for the last 12
years, is of the view that it is a case where, on facts,
exceptional situation has been created due to involvement
of the high-ups of the State taking into consideration the
huge embezzlement of public money, therefore, applying the
[57]
principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this Court
deems it fit and proper to hand over the investigation to the
CBI.
(iv) So far as the judgment rendered in Shree Shree
Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir and Another v.
State of Jharkhand and Others [(2019) 6 SCC 777] is
concerned, this Court after going through the factual
aspect, has found therefrom that the matter pertains to the
rights of the Trustees to sell properties of a religious trust
or deity, which gives rise to the civil dispute. But, herein,
such is not the fact, rather, it involves huge public money,
therefore, on facts this judgment is not applicable.
20. The investigation has not been carried out with
respect to commission of irregularity pertaining to
construction of Mega Sports Complex even in spite of
recommendation of the Vidhan Sabha Committee, rather
false affidavit has been filed before this Court that the
matter pertaining to embezzlement of public money in the
matter of construction of Mega Sports Complex has been
handed over to the Vigilance Bureau and the fact that the
Vigilance Bureau has apprised this Court by way of an
affidavit that no such investigation has been handed over to
it.
Further, even where the investigation has been
handed over pertaining to purchase of equipments/sports
material being Vigilance Case No.49/2010, the
[58]
investigation is continuing for last 12 years. The record
suggest that the committee which was constituted for
organizing the 34th National Games, was headed by the
then Chief Minister, who is father of the present Chief
Minister and it would also appear from the list of the
committees wherein most of the bureaucrats are now at the
highest level of the Government heading the departments.
Therefore, will it not be proper for this Court, in
such a situation, to hand over the investigation to Central
Bureau of Investigation in order to maintain the faith of the
people and to secure the social justice since there is
involvement of huge amount of public money and the
charge-sheet has also been submitted against some of the
accused persons pertaining to purchase of sports material?
This Court, therefore, applying the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh
v. State of Gujarat and Others (Supra), Bimal Gurung v.
Union of India and Others (Supra) and State of West
Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others (Supra), is
of the view that it is a fit case where the matter is required
to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation
even in spite of the fact that charge-sheet against some of
the accused persons has been submitted but investigation
is still going on.
[59]
It is also a fit case to hand over the investigation to
Central Bureau of Investigation, reason being that the
suppliers/contractors are shown to have their offices
outside the territory and jurisdiction of the State of
Jharkhand and it is not possible for the State Police, even
the Anti-Corruption Bureau, to conduct investigation,
properly, with respect to the erring persons or the
contractors or the suppliers who are living outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand unless the
investigation will be conducted by an independent agency
like Central Bureau of Investigation who is having authority
to investigation even outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the State of Jharkhand.
Thus, on the basis of the discussion made
hereinabove as also considering the proposition laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that it is a
fit case where the investigation of the matter pertaining to
construction of Mega Sports Complex as also purchase of
equipments/sports articles is required to be handed over to
the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Issue No.(ii) is answered accordingly.
21. Accordingly, following directions are being passed :-
(i) The matter pertaining to irregularity committed in
the construction of Mega Sports Complex, constructed to
[60]
organize the 34th National Games, be investigated by
the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(ii) The investigation pertaining to Vigilance Case
No.49/2010 is directed to be handed over to the Central
Bureau of Investigation. The Anti-Corruption Bureau of the
State of Jharkhand is directed to hand over the entire
documents to the Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith.
(iii) The Central Bureau of Investigation is further
directed to surface the complicity of the administrative
authorities as also the Police Officials and others who are
found to be coming in the way of early conclusion of the
investigation of the case in order to surface the culpability
of the accused persons in delaying the investigation for a
period of more than 12 years.
Such direction is being passed taking into
consideration the fact that in a criminal case if there is any
interference in the proper investigation of the crime, the
concerned who are coming in the way of proper
investigation, is also required to be dealt with.
(iv) The State of Jharkhand, through different
departments in the helms of affairs of the sports, is directed
to coordinate with the Central Bureau of Investigation by
handing over the documents pertaining to construction of
Mega Sports Complex, constructed to organize the 34th
National Games, forthwith.
[61]
(v) The Central Bureau of Investigation would be at
liberty to move an application before this Court in case of
non-cooperation from the State Government on any count.
22. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stand
disposed of with the direction as above.
23. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Birendra/ A.F.R.
