Manipur High Court
The Manipur Lokayukta Through Its ... vs Shri N. Sarat Singh on 19 December, 2022
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2022.12.22 17:11:07 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022
The Manipur Lokayukta through its Secretary, 3rd
Floor Directorate Complex, 2nd M.R. North AOC,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District- 795001.
...Applicant/Respondent No. 2
- VERSUS -
1. Shri N. Sarat Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o (L) N.
Modhumangol Singh, a resident of Thangmeiband
Yumnam Leikai, P.O. Lamphelpat & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Shri Th. Bimol Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o (L)
Th. Dwijamani Singh of Ward No. 3,
Ningthoukhong, P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur
District, Manipur.
... Principal Respondent/Writ Petitioners
3. The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Manipur, Secretariat South Block,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal - 795001.
... Pro-Forma Respondent/Respondent No.1
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. M. Rarry, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Adv.
Date of Hearing and
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
Page |2
reserving Judgment & Order :: 01.12.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 19.12.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to
vacate, set aside, modify and not to extend any further the
interim order dated 29.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.833 of
2022, which is in operation.
2. Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. HS Paonam, the learned senior counsel for
the respondents.
3. The petitioner is the second respondent in the writ
petition. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the writ petitioners
and the third respondent is the first respondent in the writ
petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the respondents 1 and 2 have filed W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022
for closing Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 as not maintainable
due to barred by limitation and also for issuance of a writ in view
of Section 53 of Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014. He would submit
that when the said writ petition was listed on 29.9.2022 the
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
Page |3
respondents 1 and 2 basing on the so called handing
over/taking over certificate dated 14.8.2015 of the associated
33 KV line and related civil works between Turn Key firm i.e.
Ms.Shyama Power India Limited and one officer of MSPCL i.e.
DGM, TD-III on the letter head of the Turn Key Firm obtained
interim order dated 29.9.2022. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner the interim order was passed on the
incorrect premises that the complaint is time barred one and
apart from this, it was also observed that the petitioner herein
has no right to pass any order for the personal appearance of
the officers concerned as ordered on 23.9.2022.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the observations found in the order dated
29.9.2022 are misreading the power and jurisdiction of Manipur
Lokayukta Act, 2014, especially, Sections 20(1)(a), 22 and 27
and also the overall power of the Manipur Lokayukta being a sui
generis quasi-judicial authority as enumerated and propounded
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well various High Courts.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner added that
prima facie, it is require to consider as to who is the appropriate
institution/authority to decide whether the Complaint Case No.5
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
Page |4
of 2022 for embezzlement of and misappropriation of
Government fund in tune of Crores of rupees against the
Managing Director of MSPCL and the Turn Key Firm and the
Government Department against whose officials the allegation
has been made, which is barred by limitation.
7. The learned counsel urged that it cannot be nor
there can be a failure to consider the work order dated 2.7.2014
that the contract period of the contract work is 18 months and
an agreement shall be signed within 30 days from the date of
issue of the work order dated 2.7.2014. The project is alleged
to have been completed long before the period of completion of
the contract work and these facts could only be ascertained on
production of the documents called for vide order of the Manipur
Lokayukta dated 8.9.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.5 of
2022, inasmuch as the project is funded by NLCPR. If the
completion of the project as per the document dated 14.8.2015
is accepted to be correct, it would certainly justify the allegation
that the project for laying 33 KV transmission line of 20 kms.
from 33/11/ KV substation New Chayang to Sugnu had been
commissioned by tapping only 3 km from the existing 33 KV
new Chayang-Joupi line at Khongnang Paishabi and
embezzled the fund and materials for the remaining 17 kms.
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
Page |5
8. The learned counsel next submitted that as per the
record available with the Manipur Lokayukta, the Complaint
Case No.5 of 2022 is not barred by limitation as provided under
Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, inasmuch as it
would be prima facie clear under the work order dated 2.7.2014
that the contract period for execution of the project which
includes installation of 2x5 MVA 33/11 KV substation at Sugnu
is 18 months with effect from 2.7.2014. He would submit that
the disputed question of fact ought not to be decided in a writ
petition nor can any prima facie finding ought to be given that
complaint is barred by limitation and specially when such finding
was made solely on the basis of the alleged handing over/taking
over certificate dated 14.9.2015 produced by the Turn Key Firm,
M/s.Shyama Power India Limited and that the said handing
over/taking over certificate is only for the line portion and does
not mention the length of the transmission line and does not
include the main work of installation of 2x5 MVA 33/11 KV
substation at Sugnu and the said claim is required to be verified.
9. By placing reliance upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh B. Desai and
others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others, (2006) 5 SCC 638,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
Page |6
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and that the
impugned order ought to follow this settled principle of law
regarding law of limitation while passing the impugned interim
order dated 29.9.2022 in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 specifically
when the issue of limitation is said to be disputed.
10. The learned counsel then submitted that the writ
petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition
challenging the order of Manipur Lokayukta dated 8.9.2022 and
23.9.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 directing the
Administrative Secretary, Department of Power to furnish
information and produce documents for verification prior to the
preliminary inquiry and investigation by registering a case at this
stage.
11. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the
interim order has failing to consider and appreciate the power
and jurisdiction of Lokayukta and its nature, in the light of the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the statutory
power of Manipur Lokayukta as provided under the Manipur
Lokayukta Act, 2014. Therefore, there is an urgency to vacate,
set aside, modify and not to extend any further the interim order
dated 29.9.2022 granted in the writ petition.
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
Page |7
12. Per contra, Mr. HS Paonam, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners
submitted that the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.833 of 2022 has completely disturbed the malafide intention
of Manipur Lokayukta in its journey of witch hunting in the name
of taking cognizance and preliminary inquiry in pursuance of the
Complaint Case No.5 of 2022, inasmuch as stand taken by the
Manipur Lokayukta about its not believing the handing over and
taking over certificate thereby seems to have been looking for
other means to take up further proceedings indirectly, including
collection of documents connected with installation of 33 KV
sub-station along with associated 33KV line at Sugnu which is
the subject matter of Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. He would
submit that the aforesaid submission will support from an order
dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Manipur Lokayukta leading to
passing an order authorising investigating officer in connection
with FIR No.4(02)2022 CB-PS under Section 7(b)/13 PC Act,
120-B/34 IPC added with Section 468 and 461 IPC pursuant to
the order passed in Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 for search
and seizure at the residence of the first respondent as well as
the office premises.
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
Page |8
13. The learned senior counsel for the respondents 1
and 2 further submitted that the whole case has been taken up
on the basis of instigation and information furnished by some
vested interest officials working in the MSPCL and MSPDCL
who are in quest of further promotion irrespective of non-
possession of eligibility criteria had come to the fore very
recently when the first respondent along with two other officials
including the Principal Secretary (Power), Government of
Manipur was scheduled to attend a conference of Power and
New and Renewable Energy Ministers of States and UT from
14th and 15th October, 2022 at Udaipur and Rajasthan.
14. The learned senior counsel then submitted that
during Diwali and Ningol Chakkouba festivals when the first
respondent organising and inviting his sisters for the festival left
his residence on 24.10.2022, a team of police personnel led by
the investigating officer, namely Shri Shrey Vats, SP, Kakching
rushed to the residence of the first respondent armed with
search and seizure authorisation given by the Secretary,
Lokayukta with reference to an order dated 21.10.2022 referring
to Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 which is wholly a non-existent
complaint case involving the first respondent. The team had
under search and seizure both at the residence and office
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
Page |9
premises of the first respondent and while making search, the
team started looking for documents relevant to the work order
for installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station along with
associated 33 KV line and related civil works at Sugnu which is
not at all connected in Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 as well as
the above referred FIR.
15. The learned senior counsel urged that the Manipur
Lokayukta and its agency are carrying out activities which they
cannot do directly but indirectly even to the extent of
circumventing the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.833
of 2022. The attitude of the petitioner even referring to the order
dated 27.1.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.75 of 2022 indicates its
improprieties and irregularities as the petitioner having
knowledge that W.P.(C) No.75 of2022 has been closed on
withdrawal with liberty to approach this Court again by the order
dated 19.4.2022. Thus, the Manipur Lokayukta, as expected by
the general public, may confine its obligated duty within the four
corners of the provision of the statute provided by the Act and
may not indulge into embarking on a journey of witch hunting.
Therefore, there is no necessity to vacate or modify the interim
order dated 29.9.2022 and in fact, the extension of interim order
is very much required to protect the writ petitioners from
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 10
relentless harassment in the guise of investigation of the time
barred complaint.
16. This Court considered the rival submissions and
also perused the materials available on record.
17. The petitioner-Manipur Lokayukta seeks to vacate
the interim order dated 29.9.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.833 of
2022 on the ground that the interim order was passed on an
incorrect premise that the complaint is time barred by limitation
and the Manipur Lokayukta has no right to pass any order for
personal appearance of the officers concerned, as ordered on
23.9.2022.
18. W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 has been filed by
respondents 1 and 2 herein for issuance of a writ of mandamus
for closing the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 as not
maintainable being barred by limitation and restraining the
Manipur Lokayukta from proceeding with the Complaint Case
No.5 of 2022 pending disposal of the writ petition.
19. On 29.9.2022, when W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 was
taken up for hearing, this Court passed the following order:
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 11
"[1] Heard Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
[2] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner argued the case that prima facie
the compliant taken by the Manipur Lokayukta
in complaint case No. 5 of 2022 is not at all
maintainable only on the ground that as per
the Section 53 of Manipur Lokayukta Act if the
alleged occurrence was lapsed for 7(seven)
years, the complaint should not be taken by
the Lokayukta. Mr. H.S Paonam, learned
senior counsel for the petitioner further raised
another ground that in order dated
23.09.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta has
passed an order in which in para No.9 of order
dated 23.09.2022 which read as follows:
"Put up the case on 10.10.2022 for the
personal appearance of (i) Administrative
Secretary, Department of Power,
Government of Manipur and (ii) Mrs.
Orjubala Haorongbam, Deputy Secretary
(power) Government of Manipur on
10.10.2022 at 11:00 am,
However of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, the
learned Lukayukta have no power to issue any
notice for personal appearance of the
Administrative office concerned. But by the
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 12
order dated 23.09.2022 of the learned Manipur
Lokayukta directly issued order for personal
appearance of the Administrative officer.
Therefore, once the complaint itself is not
maintainable one before the Lokayukta and
order dated 23.09.2022 is also not
maintainable one.
[3] Mr. Mr. Rarry, learned Standing counsel
represented the petitioner has not served case
papers to him before taking up the matter for
admission since he is the standing counsel for
the Manipur Lokayukta. Anyhow, Mr. H. S
Paoanam , learned senior counsel for the
petitioner has given all the paper to Mr. M.
Rarry, learned standing counsel in the open
Court.
[4] After gone through the writ petition and
documents, Mr. M. Rarry, learned Standing
counsel for the Manipur Lokayukta
represented the compliant case is not taken
for registration as on date by the Manipur
Lokayukta and the very file of the writ petition
is premature one. Therefore, for proper
instruction from the Manipur Lokayukta and for
filing counter affidavit, he seeks time.
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 13
[5] Mr. HS Paonam learned senior counsel for
the petitioner has produced certificate dated
14.08.2015 which read as follows:
Handing over/Taking Over (Certificate)
Date 14/08/2015
Project: Installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 kV
Sub-Station along with the associated 33
KV line and related Civil works at Sugnu
in Thoubal District on turn-key basis.
Ref.: LOA No. 4/109/33KV/SUG/13-
ED(PURCH)/706-17, dated 02/07/2014.
Name of Line: Associated 33 kV
transmission line.
With reference to the above mentioned
LOA/Work Order, the construction
activities of the associated 33 kV
transmission line of the above project has
been completed by tapping from existing
33 kV transmission line from New
Chayang to Joupi in looping in -- looping
out (LILO) configuration by M/s Shyama
Power India Limited, Gurgaon, and the
line has been successfully tested and
commissioned on 14/08/2015 in
presence of MSPCL officials. The
completed transmission line facility is
taken over by the Dy. General Manager,
TD-IIl, Manipur State Power Company
Limited (MSPCL) on this day i.e.,
14/08/2015.
'For and behalf of For and Behalf of
Manipur State Power Shyama Power
Company Limited India Limited.
DGM, TD-III Project manager
(taken over) (handing over)
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 14
[6] As per the above certificate dated
14.08.2015 issued by Shyama Power India
Limited which was handing over/taking over
on 14.08.2015, it is made clear that as per the
Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act,
2014, the complaint is time barred one. Apart
from this the learned Lokayukta has no right to
pass any order for the personal appearance
officers concerned as ordered 23.09.2022.
[7] Therefore, prima facie of the petitioner is
made out the case before this Court.
[8] Accordingly, this writ petition is admitted.
[9] Notice to the respondents. Since Mr. Rarry,
learned counsel takes notice for the
Lokayukta, no formal notice is required.
[10] Post this matter on 20.10.2022.
[11] Till such time, there shall be an order of
interim stay of the order dated 23.09.2022
passed by learned Manipur Lokayukta.
[12] Print the name of Mr. Rarry in the cause
list."
20. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed W.P.(C)
No.833 of 2022, inter alia, contending that irrespective of the
actual state of affairs which may not be disputed about the
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 15
completion of the project in the month of August, 2015, the
Manipur Lokayukta is not appreciating the stand of the
Government and have been insisting on making inquiry which
otherwise is outside its jurisdiction thereby making it clear that
Manipur Lokayukta has become an instrument at the hand of
few persons who indulged in making complaints on surmises
and information provided against the official documents and
records. Such action demonstrates personal interest of the
inquiring authority and the respondents 1 and 2 have also given
illustrations in the writ petition. Therefore, it has become
imperative that interference of this Court in the matter has
become highly necessary so that systematic harassment in the
name of investigation and inquiry at the behest of vested
interested individuals be prevented, thereby restoring the faith
of general public including officials working in such Government
establishment manning the essential service. According to the
respondents 1 and 2, no productive work is being executed in
the Company/Department while attending to such inquiry and
investigation filed by the vested interested persons.
21. Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act 2014,
provides bar in taking up of complaint in respect of the allegation
of committing offence after the expiry of 7 years. As per the
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 16
said provision, the Lokayukta shall not inquire into any
complaint, if the complaint is made after the expiry of a period
of seven years from the date on which the offence mentioned in
such complaint is alleged to have been committed.
22. According to the respondents 1 and 2, the
execution of associated 33 KV transmission line pursuant to the
letter of award dated 2.7.2014 which is the prime focus of
allegation of the complainant in the complaint has been
successfully completed and after following the due process as
per the laid down procedure including testing and
commissioning in the presence of MSPCL official, handing over
and taking over of the completed works was done on 14.8.2015
between the executing agency i.e. M/s. Shyama Power (India)
Private Limited and MSPCL, represented by its DGM.
Transmission Division-III. Thus, it is the specific case of the
respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 that the
complaint filed before the Manipur Lokayukta is in respect of
associated 33 KV transmission line of the project whereof had
already been completed long back on 14.8.2015 and thus, it
would be out of the purview of the Manipur Lokayukta as per
the scheme of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014.
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 17
23. As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for
the respondents 1 and 2 and as could be seen from the
available records produced by the parties, this Court is of the
view that irrespective of the actual state of affairs which may not
be disputed about the completion of the project in the month of
August, 2015, the Manipur Lokayukta without appreciating the
stand of the Government, insisting for personal appearance of
the respondents 1 and 2 and other officers concerned under the
guise of inquiry which prima facie is outside its jurisdiction.
Therefore, this Court, upon appreciating the submissions put
forth by the learned counsel appearing on either side,
particularly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
herein, granted interim stay of the order dated 23.9.2022
passed by the Manipur Lokayukta.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the complaint case is not taken for registration by the
Manipur Lokayukta and the filing of the writ petition is premature
one. The said submission cannot be appreciated for the simple
reason that under the guise of enquiry and/or investigation, the
authorities shall not harass the individual at the behest of vested
interested persons. That apart, a bar has been imposed under
Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014 for taking up the
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 18
complaint in respect of allegation of committing offence after the
expiry of seven years. As stated supra, the work in question
was completed way back on 14.8.2015, however, the Complaint
Case No.5 of 2022 based on the complaint lodged by the Shri
Ngangom Ibotombi Singh against the first respondent; N.Sarat
Singh, Managing Director of MSPCL; Transmission Division-III,
Lamphel and M/s.Syama Power (India) Private Limited was
taken up for adjudication on 8.9.2022 by the Manipur
Lokayukta.
23. A perusal of the file produced by the petitioner
Manipur Lokayukta during the course of hearing in respect of
Complaint Case No.5 of 2022, makes it is clear that Shri
Ngangom Ibotombi Singh has filed the complaint before the
Manipur Lokayukta on 31.8.2022. According to respondents 1
and 2, the work in question was completed way back on
14.8.2015 and the complaint as per the file was lodged on
31.8.2022, which is beyond the period of seven years as per the
Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014.
24. It is to be noted that the order dated 29.9.2022
which is sought to be vacated/modified is not an ex parte order
and this Court only after hearing the learned counsel appearing
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 19
for the petitioner Manipur Lokayukta and upon finding prima
facie case in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 granted interim
stay of the order dated 23.9.2022 passed by the Manipur
Lokayukta.
25. In a case where the High Court is prima facie of
the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of
interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad
parameters, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the High Court has to give brief
reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is
required to be passed. This Court is of the view that prima facie
case for grant of interim order has been established by the
respondents 1 and 2 and this Court has also set out brief
reasons for passing the interim order in the order dated
29.9.2022. Thus, there is no valid ground to vacate and/or
modify the interim order of this Court dated 29.9.2022 and on
the other hand, the interest of justice, warrants extension of the
interim order dated 29.9.2022 till the disposal of the main writ
petition.
26. At this stage, it is apposite to mention that
subsequent to the filing of W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022, the first
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 20
respondent herein filed W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022 challenging the
impugned letter dated 31.10.2022 issued by Deputy Registrar,
Manipur Lokayukta and to issue a writ in the nature of
prohibition or any other writ of the like nature prohibiting the
Manipur Lokayukta from taking further proceedings and
consequential action in respect of the Complaint Case No.2 of
2020 and Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 in view of the action
indicated by the warrant of search and seizure dt. 21/10/2022
and seizure memo dated 24.10.2022 which has virtually
circumvented the interim order dated. 29.09.2022 passed by
this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No.833 of 2022.
27. By the order dated 22.11.2022, this Court passed
the following order:
"36. In the aforesaid factual scenario, when
this Court analysed the prayer of the petitioner
for grant of interim order, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner has established a
prima facie case for granting interim order of
staying the further proceedings and the
consequential action in respect of the
Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and Complaint
Case No.5 of 2022 and the balance of
convenience is also in favour of the petitioner
and in case the order restraining the second
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 21
respondent from taking further proceedings in
the aforementioned two Complaint Cases is
not passed, definitely the petitioner would put
to not only irreparable loss and damage but
also it will tarnish his image and also in view of
letter dated 17.2.2022, whereby the Secretary
(Power), Government of Manipur observed
that it is not feasible to accept the
recommendations of the second respondent
dated 7.2.2022 at present due to
administrative reasons under Section 32(2) of
the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, in the
interest of justice, this Court is inclined to pass
the following orders:
(i) The writ petition is admitted.
(ii) Issue notice to the respondents,
returnable in four weeks. The petitioner
is also permitted to take private service
(iii) Mr.Rarry, learned counsel, takes notice
on behalf of the second respondent -
Manipur Lokayukta. No formal notice is
required.
(iv) Let the writ petition be listed on
20.12.2022.
(v) Till such time, the second respondent is
restrained from taking further
proceedings and consequential action
in respect of the Complaint Case No.2
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
P a g e | 22
of 2020 and Complaint Case No.5 of
2022 pending on its file, which were
initiated against the petitioner."
28. Nothing has been produced by the petitioners to
show that as against the interim order dated 22.11.2022 passed
in W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022, an appeal has been preferred. In
view of the said interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022
thereby restraining the enquiry officer from taking further
proceedings and consequential action in respect of Complaint
Case No.5 of 2022, no contra view is possible in this case, as
no appeal has been preferred against the interim order dated
22.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022.
29. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the
view that there is no merit in MC (WP) No.346 of 2022 and
accordingly dismissed and thus, the interim order dated
29.9.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 is made absolute
till the disposal of the writ petition.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
MC(WP(C)) No. 346 of 2022 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 833 of 2022)
