Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11371 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VIRENDRA SINGH PARIHAR S/O LATE SHRI
RAMGOPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE DISTRICT COURT SIDHI, R/O
ARJUN NAGAR SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI N.N. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING, ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS,
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, EOW, EOW BHAWAN,
42, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COMMISSIONER, REWA DIVISION DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
LTD NAGPUR, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VCA
STADIUM COMPLEX, NEW SECRETARIAT
BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, EAST WING, OPP- CIVIL
LINES, NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)
5. SHRI SUBHASH SINGH, EX-CHAIRMAN, VINDHYA
VIKAS PRADHIKARAN REWA VILLAGE/POST
BADKHARA, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SHRI R.K. SHUKLA, EX-CEO, VINDHYA VIKAS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 1/12/2023
5:56:34 PM
2
PRADHIKARAN REWA NOW POSTED AS JOINT
COMMISSIONER, M.P. RURAL LIVELIHOOD
MISSION VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT SETH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 AND SHRI R.K. SONI - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.4)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, the Hon'ble
Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to grant approval
as sought by the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 05.08.2021 as
per section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
immediately so that a free and fair enquiry can be conducted to
unearth the full magnitude of the Scam;
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to issue suitable directions and orders to ensure
that the culprits are dealt with according to law;
(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to direct the respondents/State to take punitive
action against the officer responsible for delay in granting
approval; and
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper may also be given to the petitioner,in the interest of
justice."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he along with one Pradeep Nigam made a
complaint on 10.05.2018 to the authorities with respect to certain illegalities and
irregularities being committed by the private respondents including the corrupt
practice committing huge financial loss to the public exchequer. On an enquiry
being conducted, a final report was submitted on 06.11.2019 finding the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to be guilty. It is submitted that the Economic
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 1/12/2023
5:56:34 PM
Offences Wing has also analyzed the report and found it to be correct.
Therefore, in compliance of Section 17(A) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 the Economic Offences Wing sought approval from the State
Government for initiation of further proceedings vide letter dated 05.08.2021
which as on date remains unaddressed; therefore, the present petition has been
filed.
3. On putting a specific question to the counsel for the petitioner regarding his
locus to file present petition, he submits that the only answer which could be
given is that he is a complainant in the matter.
4. The similar aspect was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No.18387
of 2020 (M.P. Karmachari Congress Through District President Munedra
Singh Parihar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on
06.01.2021 and subsequently in Writ Appeal No.64 of 2021 (M.P. Karmachari
Congress Through District President Munedra Singh Parihar Versus The
State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on 10.02.2021, whereby it is
categorically held that once on a complaint the action has been taken by the
authorities, then no further locus is available to the complainant to file a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Even otherwise, it is the domain of the State Government to grant approval
or sanction for initiation of further proceedings to the Economic Offences Wing
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198 in terms of Section 19 of the Act.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Police Establishment vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.25917 of 2021)
vide order dated 05.12.2022 has dealt with the question of sanction. Even if in
the enquiry the Government Officials are found to be guilty, then also the State
Government is having right not to grant sanction for further prosecution in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 1/12/2023
5:56:34 PM
matter. The Division Bench while holding so in para 7 has held as follows:
"7. In the instant case, the question that would arise for
consideration is as to whether the Lokayukt, as an institution has
any authority to challenge an order refusing to grant sanction by
the State. As held hereinabove, the said question has already
been answered by this Court in the judgment in the case of
Sandeep Kumar Lohani (supra). Every State body has a role to
perform. It has to do so within the confines of the power vested in
it by statute. The Lokayukt has its role to play as much as the
State Government has its role to perform. The duty of the
Lokayukt is to conduct an investigation and thereafter to place it
for grant of sanction or otherwise to the Government. The
Government, in turn, has the responsibility to go through the
material and thereafter to come to a conclusion as to whether
sanction is to be granted or not. The grant of sanction is a very
important facet in the matter of prosecution of civil servants. It is
intended to ensure that there are no frivolous prosecutions that
are carried out. It is for this reason that the question of grant of
sanction becomes crucial. Therefore, once the Lokayukt has
performed its duty of submitting its report to the Government, its
role ends. It is the discretion of the Government to grant sanction
or not. When such a sanction has been refused, the Lokayukt
could not challenge the said order."
6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is having no locus to file the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same is not
maintainable in view of the aforesaid judgments. Therefore, the present writ
petition is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 1/12/2023
5:56:34 PM
