SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam, CJI., Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Justice Ripusudan Dayal (Retd.) and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 613 of 2007 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Decided On : 25.02.2014
Constitution of India – Article 32, 14, 19, 21 and 194 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Chapter XVIII – Sections 409 and 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Act, 1981 – Section 2 and 3 – Central Provinces and Berar Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 – Section 3 and 4 – Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 2 – Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956 – Section 3 – Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 5 – Sea Customs Act – Section 167 – Legal Advisor – Alleging Irregularity – Quashing – Appeal filed by Petitioners challenging validity of certain letters issued by Secretary on various dates against them with regard to a case registered by Special Police Establishment against officials of Vidhan Sabha Secretariat as well as against concerned officials of Capital Project Administration Contractor Company alleging irregularity in construction work carried out – complaint was received on office of Lokayukt stating that a road connecting involving an expenditure of about was being constructed without inviting tenders and complying with prescribed procedure averred in complaint that with a view to regularize above-said works officers misused their official position and got work sanctioned to Capital Project Administration in violation of rules which amounts to serious financial irregularity and misuse of office – Held, Privileges are available only insofar as they are necessary in order that House may freely perform its functions – For application of laws, particularly provisions of jurisdiction of Lokayukt or the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment is for all public servants and no privilege is available to officials and, in any case they cannot claim any privilege more than an ordinary citizen to whom provisions of said Acts apply – Privileges do not extend to activities undertaken outside the House on which legislative provisions would apply without any differentiation – Writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, C.J.I.
1. The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the validity of certain letters issued by Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin-Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No. 4 herein) on various dates against them with regard to a case registered by the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat as well as against the concerned officials of the Capital Project Administration-the Contractor Company alleging irregularity in the construction work carried out in the premises of Vidhan Sabha.
2. It is relevant to mention that Petitioner No. 1 herein was the Lokayukt of the State of Madhya Pradesh appointed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Lokayukt Act"). Petitioner No. 2 was the Legal Advisor, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service on deputation with the Lokayukt and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were the officers of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment.
3. The Petitioners herein claimed that the said letters violate their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and are contrary to Article 194(3) and prayed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction(s) quashing the said letters as well as the complaints filed by Respondent Nos. 5, 6 (since expired), 7, 8 and 9 herein.
4. Brief facts
(a) An anonymous complaint was received on 21.06.2005 in the office of the Lokayukt stating that a road connecting the Vidhan Sabha with Vallabh Bhawan, involving an expenditure of about Rs. 2 crores, was being constructed without inviting tenders and complying with the prescribed procedure. It was also averred in the said complaint that with a view to regularize the above-said works, the officers misused their official position and got the work sanctioned to the Capital Project Administration in violation of the rules which amounts to serious financial irregularity and misuse of office. It was also mentioned in the said complaint that in order to construct the said road, one hundred trees had been cut down without getting the permission from the concerned department. The said complaint was registered as E.R. No. 127 of 2005. During the inquiry, the Deputy Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, vide letter dated 18.08.2005 stated that the work had been allotted to the lowest tenderer and the trees were cut only after obtaining the requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. In view of the said reply, the matter was closed on 22.08.2005.
(b) On 22.12.2006, again a complaint was filed by one Shri P.N. Tiwari, supported with affidavit and various documents, alleging the same irregularities in the said construction work by the officers of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat in collusion with the Capital Project Administration which got registered as E.R. No. 122 of 2006. A copy of the said complaint was sent to the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government, Housing and Environment Department for comments. In reply, the Additional Secretary, M.P. Government, Housing and Environment Department submitted the comments along with certain documents stating that the Building Controller Division working under the Capital Project Administration was transferred to the administrative control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat vide Order dated 17.07.2000 and consequently the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha was solely responsible for the construction and maintenance work within the Vidhan Sabha premises.
(c) On 26.06.2007, a request was made to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department to submit all the relevant records, tender documents, note sheets, administrative, technical and budgetary sanctions by 10.10.2007. By letter dated 17.07.2007, the Under Secretary of the said Department informed that since the administrative sanctions were issued by the Secretariat Vidh
The Bengal Immunity Co. Limited v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1955) 2 SCR 603
East India Commercial Co., Ltd., Calcutta and Anr. v. The Collector of Customs
Kiran Bedi and Ors. v. Committee of Inquiry and Anr. (1989) 1 SCR 20
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.