SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Ramesh Abhishek – Appellant
Versus
Lokpal of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6102 of 2023 and CM Appls. 23934 of 2023, 23935 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ajit K. Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Ms. Anukriti Tiwari, Mr. Shrish Kohli, Mr. Shubham Sahota and Mr. Debasish Mishra, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Mr Ojaswa Pathak, Advocate, for R-1.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Counsel for Directorate of Enforcement with Mr. Vivek Gurnani and Mr. Kavish Garach, Advocates, for R-2 along with Mr. Rajiv Jain, DD, ED.

The Lokpal has the authority to refer matters to specialized agencies for inquiries and investigations, and interference in its proceedings should be avoided unless there is something palpably wrong or contrary to law.

Headnote:

Lokpal - Jurisdictional Challenge - Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 - Section 14, Section 20, Rule 4 - The Lokpal referred the matter to the ED to make enquiries in respect of immovable property and other properties of the Petitioner. The ED was directed to complete the inquiry/investigation within two months. The court upheld the Lokpal's jurisdiction and the manner in which it proceeded in the matter, emphasizing the need for effective functioning of the Lokpal and avoiding interference in its proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, an ex-IAS officer, challenged the impugned orders passed by the Lokpal of India directing inquiries and investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement against the Petitioner in respect of possession of disproportionate assets.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the Lokpal's jurisdiction and the manner in which it proceeded in the matter, emphasizing the need for effective functioning of the Lokpal and avoiding interference in its proceedings.

Issues: Jurisdictional challenge to Lokpal's orders directing inquiries and investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement against the Petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The Lokpal has the authority to refer matters to specialized agencies for inquiries and investigations, and interference in its proceedings should be avoided unless there is something palpably wrong or contrary to law.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, leaving all grounds raised to be considered and decided by Lokpal, and not making any observations on merits in this regard.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Ramesh Abhishek challenging the impugned orders dated 2nd February, 2022 and 3rd January, 2023 passed by the Lokpal of India by which inquiries and investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) have been directed by Lokpal against the Petitioner, in respect of possession of disproportionate assets.

3. The Petitioner is an ex-IAS officer who served as the Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce/DPIIT as also the Chairperson of the Forward Markets Commission. He retired with effect from 31st July, 2019. A complaint was received by The Lokpal of India in May 2019 against the Petitioner. Vide impugned order dated 2nd February, 2022, the Lokpal directed as under:

    "32. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we cannot be a mute spectator to these allegations relating to corruption which should be dealt with strictly. More so when substantial parts of information furnished by the complainant have been admitted by the public servant (respondent) in his affidavits. We, therefore, refer the matter to Enforcement Directorate (ED) along with all papers relating to this complaint. Director, Enforcement Directorate is directed to make enquiries in regard to the valuation of the property viz. E-72, Greater Kailash, Part-II, acquired by the public servant (respondent) and co-owners/owners of other floors. ED should also enquire whether there was any conflict of interest in terms of remuneration received by the public servant (respondent) and/or his relatives. During this enquiry, it may also be ascertained whether the public servant (respondent) was required to inform relevant authority, the cost of redevelopment of the property bought by him in GK-II and whether the appropriate authority was informed or not.

    33. Necessary action in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws /regulations may be taken by ED in this matter. Registry of the Lokpal of India is directed to send to Directorate of Enforcement all papers of this case including affidavits filed by the public servant (respondent) along with this order."

4. As can be seen from the above directions, the Lokpal referred the matter to the ED to make enquiries in respect of immovable property and other properties of the Petitioner. The ED vide its letter dated 4th August, 2022, communicated a report to Lokpal which was considered on 3rd January, 2023 by the Lokpal. After considering the report submitted by the ED, vide the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2023, the Lokpal directed an open enquiry and it was further directed that the said enquiry and investigation should be completed by the ED within two months. The relevant portions of the said impugned order dated 3rd January, 2023 are extracted below:

    "6. In Para -3 of the Inquiry Report submitted by ED, it has been submitted that to look in to the issues referred to in detail, an open inquiry may be required to be carried out. In this regard, ED has sought the advice of the Lokpal of India or conducting further inquiries.

    7. The Division Bench has carefully considered the request of the ED and the provisions under Rule 4 (a) of the Lokpal (Complaint) Rules, 2020, and is of the view that the rules do not prohibit or prescribe any method of inquiry that may be required to get to the facts of the case. Therefore, it is open to the ED to adopt any method of inquiry that they may feel is necessary and appropriate. However, while doing so, it may be ensured that the identity of the concerned RP8 is not made known to persons who are not concerned or associated with the inquiry. It may also be ensured that inquiry is made only with persons or organizations associated or conversant with the transactions being inquired into.

    8. In view of the above, ED is directed to complete the inquiry/investigation within two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order, i.e. on or befor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top