Uttarakhand High Court
Bobby Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 6 June, 2025
2025:UHC:4618-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
6TH JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 92 OF 2025
Bobby Panwar .........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate
General with Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned
Chief Standing Counsel.
Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent No. 5 : Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. D. Barthwal, learned
counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Advocate General with the Chief Standing Counsel
for the State.
2. Learned Advocate General has placed on record
the proceedings of the Additional Secretary, Personnel and
Vigilance Department dated 08.07.2024.
3. At the outset, learned Advocate General would
oppose the maintainability of the petition on the short
ground that there are numerous cases filed against the
petitioner; that he has contested elections and; that this is
not a public interest litigation, but a Paisa Vasool litigation.
He would also place reliance on a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand vs.
2025:UHC:4618-DB
Shiv Shankar Sharma (Civil Appeal Nos. of 2022
arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10622-10623 of 2022)
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541, decided on
07.11.2022, and in particular, he would place reliance on
the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph
Nos. 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31.
4. The fulcrum of the allegation is that respondent
No. 5, who is currently functioning as Managing Director of
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, has indulged in
corrupt practices in the matter of awarding tenders and has
amassed wealth disproportionate to known source of
income.
5. The petition is canvassed along the same lines
and reliance is sought to be placed on a report of a
Committee constituted by the then Managing Director of
Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited
vide order No. 713 dated 01.05.2018. The Committee,
after conducting the inquiry, is said to have submitted a
report indicting the fifth respondent, who then was
discharging the duties as Chief Engineer, but while so
observing, the Committee held that as the Committee is
not vested with either Investigative or police powers and
hence the matter is required to be dealt with by the State
Vigilance Establishment.
2025:UHC:4618-DB
6. The learned Advocate General would submit that
the Personnel and Vigilance Department has ruled to drop
the inquiry vide order dated 08.07.2024.
7. In that view of the matter, he would submit that
the decision having been taken and the same not being
challenged, the question of entertaining the writ petition
would not arise. That apart, he would reiterate his
contention that the petitioner and the petition lacks
bonafides and; that in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the ruling referred to supra, the
matter requires to be gone through by a Court of
competent jurisdiction, and this Court, in exercise of its
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
cannot conduct a trial, which has implications of
incarcerations and detentions.
8. The contentions, canvassed by learned Advocate
General, bears substance and merits consideration. The
matter requires establishment of facts and appreciation of
material for concluding such facts.
9. In that view, the contention that the forum for
the petitioner would be before the competent Trial Court
and not before this Court requires to be appreciated.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that such liberty may be granted to him to approach the
2025:UHC:4618-DB
competent Court.
11. The submissions of the learned Advocate General
and the learned counsel for the petitioner are placed on
record.
12. The petition is disposed of by permitting the
petitioner to approach the competent Court having
jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to offences
under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
13. The petition stands ordered accordingly.
14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
________________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_____________
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 6th June, 2025
Rathour
PRAVINDR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
A SINGH
2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb10
97d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B
8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8,
RATHOUR
cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR
Date: 2025.06.11 10:04:28 +05'30'
