SPA/375/2018
2022 Latest Caselaw 4051 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE

                    SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2018

                           19TH DECEMBER, 2022

BETWEEN:
Manager, Committee of Management, Gomti Puran Prasad
Arya (G.P.P.) & another
                                                                  .....Appellants.
And

State of Uttarakhand & others                                   ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel.

Counsel for the CBI : Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Arora, learned counsels.

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel.

With WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 2368 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

Smt. Anju Agarwal .....Petitioner. And

State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The limited grievance raised in the present special

appeal is to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge

in Paragraph Nos.10 and 13 of the impugned judgment dated

09.05.2018, passed in Writ Petition No.2368 of 2017. The

said writ petition had been preferred by one Smt. Anju

Agarwal, alleging wrongful appointment of respondent no.7-

Ms. Neha Sharma, in the writ petition.

2. The learned Single Judge directed the investigation

by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short "CBI") on

the premise that the management of the respondent-

Institution appears to have manipulated the appointment of

respondent no.7 in the writ petition, in preference over the

writ petitioner.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant

is that the matter was not of the nature, which should require

it to be referred to the CBI for investigation. The CBI is a

national investigation agency, and is involved investigation of

a serious crimes relating to corruption, and other large scale

scams.

4. We find merit in this submission of learned counsel

for the appellant. Even, learned counsel for the respondent-

writ petition is agreeable to deletion of that part of the

impugned judgment, whereby investigation was directed to

be conducted by the CBI in the matter of appointment of

respondent no.7- Ms. Neha Sharma.

5. We, therefore, set-aside that direction contained in

the impugned judgment.

6. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

7. The writ petition preferred by respondent no.7-

Smt. Anju Agarwal in the present appeal shall now proceed

and be decided by the learned Single Judge on its own merit.

8. The writ petition be listed before the learned Single

Judge on 04.01.2023.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.) Dated: 19th December, 2022 NISHANT