Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 1372
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Common Cause & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.As. in WP 463 of 2012 with W.P. (C) No. 515 of 2012, W.P. (C) No. 283 of 2013. Crl MP. Nos. 24056-24063 of 2014 and 24134 of 2014 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 120 of 2012
Decided On : 08-12-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Chandra Prakash, Adv., Deepeika Kalia, Adv., Kapish Seth, Adv., Prashant Bhushan, Adv., Pranav Sachdeva, Adv., Manohar Lal Sharma, Adv., Suman, Adv., Vipin Saxena, Adv., Mukul Rohtagi, AG., Abhinav Mukherjee, Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Adv., Meenakshi Grover, Adv., D. S. Mahra, Adv., Menaka Guruswamy, Adv., Vivek Paul Oriel, Adv., Binu Tamta, Adv., Sushma Suri, Adv. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv., Anitha Shenoy, Adv., Rasmi Nanda Kumar, Adv., Anip Sachthey, Adv., Mohit Paul, Adv., Shagun Matta, Adv., Saakaar Sardana, Adv., Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka, Adv., Jain Sehgal, Adv., C.D. Singh, AAG., Apoorv Kurup, Adv., Sakshi Kakkar, Adv., V. C. Shukla, Adv., Rohit Rathi, Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Rishi Agrawala, Adv., E. C. Agrawala, Adv., Kirti R. Mishra, Adv., Amarendra Saran, Sr. Adv., Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv., Sanchit Guru, Adv., Ashutosh Jha, Adv., Avinash Tripathi, Adv., Raghwendra Tiwari, Adv., Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Shikher Srivastava, Adv., Aditya Ganju, Adv., Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Adv. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Abhijeet Sinha, Adv., Sadapurna Mukharjee, Adv., Shally Bhasin, Adv., Satyajit A. Desai, Adv., Anagha S. Desai, Adv., S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv., Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv., Ranjit Kumar, SG., R. P. Bhat, Sr. Adv., Rahul Kaushik, Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Rishi Agrawala, Adv., E. C. Agrawala, Adv., Rajiv Nayar, Adv., Parul Shukla, Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Rishi Agrawala, Adv., E. C. Agrawala, Adv., Sheltan Bajaj, Advocate.
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Extension of Deputation – Issue relates to the extension of the deputation tenure of Shri Bodh Raj, Inspector and Shri J. R. Katiyar, Inspector – It is stated that their services are required in the CBI but the CISF has expressed its inability in granting an extension of the deputation tenure of these officers. – Held, Court have gone through the status of the investigations filed by the Directorate of Enforcement from 01.07.2014 to 31.08.2014 (4th report) and for the period from 01.09.2014 to 03.12.2014 (5th report) – Court find, on a perusal of the report, that the Directorate of Enforcement have not been provided some information by the CBI from 02.06.2014 onwards. – Court expect the CBI to render effective assistance to the Directorate of Enforcement and furnish the information and documents as requested. – Court also find on a perusal of the 5th report that some paragraphs are vague and up-to-date information has not been furnished in the status report – Status report filed before this Court should be meticulously examined before it is filed and up-to-date information should be given. – Order Accordingly
ORDER :
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed a note on administrative issues.
(1) The first issue relates to the extension of the deputation tenure of Shri Bodh Raj, Inspector and Shri J. R. Katiyar, Inspector. It is stated that their services are required in the CBI but the CISF has expressed its inability in granting an extension of the deputation tenure of these officers.
We are of the opinion that in view of the advance stage of investigations and the requirement of public interest, the extension of deputation tenure of these two officers in the CBI should continue until further orders.
The CISF may be informed accordingly by the Director, CBI of the contents of this order.
(2) The second issue is about the dis-association of a Deputy Superintendent of Police with the CBI.
It is stated that his request for transfer on compassionate grounds may be considered particularly since the assignment entrusted to him has since been completed.
No replacement is required by the CBI.
Accordingly, since the request is reasonable, it is acceded to, as prayed.
(3) The third issue is with regard to the replacement of an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Having considered the material on record, we are of the view that the request is reasonable and is accordingly acceded to, as prayed.
(4) The last issue is with regard to the replacement of the Additional Legal Advisor who has since retired. We are of the view that the request is reasonable and is accordingly acceded to, as prayed.
This disposes of the administrative issues raised by the CBI.
It is submitted by Mr. Amarendra Saran, learned senior counsel, that the Special Public Prosecutor Mr. R. S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, does not have any adequate space in the Patiala House Courts where the matters are being considered by the Special Judge.
We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi to take up the matter with the concerned District Judge so that adequate office space is provided to Mr. R. S. Cheema, Senior Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor, so that he is in a position to attend to the matters without any difficulty.
I. A. No. 11 (For impleadment by Tata Steel Ltd.)
2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant.
3. The application is dismissed.
I. A. No. 12 (For impleadment by M/s OCL Ltd.)
4. No one appears on behalf of the applicant.
5. The application is dismissed.
I. A. No. 14 (For impleadment by Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd.)
6. No one appears on behalf of the applicant.
7. The application is dismissed.
I. A. No. 15 (For impleadment by M/s Tata Sponge Iron Ltd.)
8. No one appears on behalf of the applicant.
9. The application is dismissed.
I. A. No. 16 (For impleadment by D. B. Power Ltd.)
10. No one appears on behalf of the applicant.
11. The application is dismissed.
I. A. No. 17 (For impleadment by M/s Rathi Steel & Power Ltd.)
12. No one appears on behalf of the applicant.
13. The application is dismissed.
I. A. No. 18 (For impleadment by Prism Cement Ltd.)
14. No one appears on behalf of the applicant.
15. The application is dismissed.
I. A. No. 24 (For impleadment by Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.)
16. No one appears on behalf of the applicant.
17. application is dismissed.
I. A. No. 20, 21, 22, 23 and Crl.M.P. No. 24063 (By BLA Industries Pvt. Ltd.)
18. Learned counsel for the applicant would like to place additional documents on record. Leave granted.
19. The matters stand adjourned to 16.12.2014 at 2 p.m.
I. A. Nos. 25, 26 and 29
20. These application pertain to underground mines and payment of Rs.295/- per metric tonne of coal extracted by them.
21. We have heard learned Attorney General as well as learned counsel for the parties. There is no merit in these applications.
22. The applications are dismissed.
I. A. No. 27, 28, 31 and Crl.M.P. Nos. 24056, 24057, 24058, 24059 and 24060
23. The applications are for excluding some coal blocks from the operation of the judgment of this Court. The applications have no merit and are dismissed.
Crl.M.P. No. 24
