Point of Law : since the preliminary inquiry which has been directed to be conducted as stated by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State will be completed expeditiously in the near future, it would be appropriate in the fitness of things that the competent authority be directed to take a decision on the basis of the report of the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs :

“a. Direct the respondent no. 1 to conduct detail and thorough enquiry/investigation on the complaint dated 29-10-2020 of the petitioner (given through speed post dated 29.10.2020) and provide a copy of complete enquiry report to the petitioner in term of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title "Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh."

b. Direct the respondent no. 1 to register the FIR on the complaint dated 29.10.2020 of the petitioner for the offence under section 13 (1) (c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 217 IPC against respondent no. 3 to 6 and start investigating the matter in accordance with law, in interest of justice.

c. Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may kindly be granted in favour of petitioner and against respondents in interest of justice.”

2. Mr. Puneet Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that one Mr. Netrapal Yadav had vacated the property bearing plot No. B-281, Gharoli Dairy Farm, Delhi (hereinafter “the said property”) and ran somewhere with all his belongings. It is further submitted that one Mr. Joginder Bhati and his associates tried to encroach the said property, demolished the entire structure and raised illegal/unauthorized construction and have taken unlawful possession of the said property.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, no one can raise any construction without obtaining prior approval from the Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that in the instant case, no approval had been taken by Mr. Joginder Bhati to carry out the said construction on the said property.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner had written several complaints to the respondents, but no action has been taken by the officials of East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter “EDMC”). Further, it is submitted that respondent nos. 3 to 6 are involved in criminal conspiracy with Mr. Joginder Bhati and by misusing their official position, they have allowed the illegal construction. Therefore, the said officers of the Municipal Corporation are guilty of committing the offence under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter “PC Act”).

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that complaints were addressed to the highest officers of the Corporation as well as the police officers of respondent no. 1, therefore, it was mandatory for the police/investigating agency to register an FIR and thereby direct for investigation. It is submitted that there are serious allegations against the concerned Junior Engineer and the Assistant Engineer who have misused their official position and corruptly discharged their official duty to obtain the pecuniary benefit by allowing such illegal construction. The petitioner had given a complaint through Speed Post on 29th October 2020 to respondent no. 1 for registration of FIR under Section 13 (1) (c) and (d) of PC Act and Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) against respondent nos. 3 to 6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the statutory and official duty of respondent no. 1 to register the FIR and start the investigation of the matter, however, till date nothing has been done on the said complaint.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1, which has been referred to in the subsequent paragraphs.

7. Per Contra, Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of