Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ramesh Kumar Rahi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1291 Jhar

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1291 Jhar
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2022

Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Kumar Rahi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 March, 2022
                       1                        W.P. (Cr.) No.354 of 2021




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          W.P. (Cr.) No. 354 of 2021


Ramesh Kumar Rahi, aged about 57 years, son of Late
Chandgi Ram, resident of Durga Mandir Road, Hirapur,
Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District- Dhanbad.
                                               .....       Petitioner
                           Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project
   Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur,
   District- Ranchi
3. Director, General-Cum-Chief of Anti-Corruption Bureau,
   Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, DGP Office, Kanke
   Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O. Morhabadi, District- Ranchi
4. Anti-Corruption Bureau through D.I.G. having office near
   Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur,
   District- Ranchi.
5. Superintendent of Police, ACB, Government of Jharkhand,
   Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O. Morhabadi, District- Ranchi.
                                         .....    Respondent
                          .....

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC- III .....

                           PRESENT

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court: -      Heard the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of the India for direction upon the concerned respondent to

conclude the investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 of 2016

(Vigilance Case No.32 of 2016), Vigilance P.S. Case No.31 of

2016 (Vigilance Case No.33 of 2016) and Vigilance P.S. Case

No.32 of 2016 (Vigilance Case No.34 of 2016), in accordance

with statute and as per the materials in the record as soon as

possible.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is one of the witness in the

present case and after much persuasion by the petitioner and

others to the competent authority; the present case has been

instituted after thorough internal enquiry which relates to

defalcation and misappropriation of huge Government fund

related with land acquisition of Tilatand Munra, District-

Dhanbad. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that even after more than five years till now, charge

sheet has not yet been submitted. It is further submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted

several representations to the competent authority for

completion of the investigation but it is of no avail. Hence, it is

submitted that the prayer of the petitioner as mentioned above

be allowed.

4. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Senior Standing

Counsel-III on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits

that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition and in

this respect, learned Senior Standing Counsel-III relied upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. And Others reported in (2001)

4 SCC 734, paragraph no.2 of which reads and under:-

"2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally

affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief."

and submitted that the fundamental right of the

petitioner is neither been directly or substantially invaded nor

is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or

his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the

applicable rules. It is further submitted by the learned Senior

Standing Counsel-III that the Anti-Corruption Bureau is

carrying out the investigation whole heartedly but since the

case involves voluminous records so, without complete

investigation which is taking considerable time, final form

cannot be submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in the

cases till today but the learned Senior Standing Counsel-III

assures that the Anti-Corruption Bureau will make all efforts

for expeditious investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted

that since the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition,

the same be dismissed being not maintainable.

5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar

and after going through the materials in the record, this Court

finds that the petitioner has failed to establish that any of his

fundamental rights have been invaded or acquired interest

have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. Hence, this

Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no locus

standi to file this writ petition. .

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being

not maintainable.

7. Before parting, it is pertinent to mention here that

since the learned Senior Standing Counsel-III has submitted

that the Anti-Corruption Bureau is taking steps for

expeditious investigation of the case, it is expected that the

investigation of the case will be done in terms of the

Resolution 1623/Anu. dated 07.08.2015 of the Anti-Corruption

Bureau, Ranchi.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 31st March, 2022 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter