IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.
Dr. Reyaz Farooq - Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K and Others - Respondents
OWP No. 1259 of 2015 and CPOW No. 752 of 2015
Decided On : 12-11-2018
(B) Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Section 3 – Investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 is not laissez – aller but controlled by mandatory provisions of Section 3 of Act – Absence of this permission renders investigation void ab initio. (Para 12)
Result – Petition allowed.
Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.
The petitioner has challenged FIR no. 33/2012, Police Station, Vigilance Organization Kashmir, in a composite petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The gravamen of charge mainly rests on the allegations that on the basis of a complaint by Tanveer Hussain Khan (respondent no. 7), filed before Special Judge Anti-Corruption under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., with regard to procurement of Dental Machinery on exorbitant rates by authorities of Government Dental College, Srinagar. Verification was conducted in this regard by Vigilance Organization Kashmir which was formally registered as Preliminary Verification no. 12/2012 which ultimately led to the registration of FIR No. 33/2012 under section 5(2) Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act Svt. 2006 (hereinafter PC Act) and 120-B in Police Station, VOK.
Factual Matrix
02. In terms of Government order No. 61-HME of 2008 dated 16.09.2008, Purchase Committee No. 3 came to be constituted including other Members with petitioner as its Chairman for finalizing the rate contracts of items to be purchased by the Health and Medical Education Department. It is stated that in partial modification of the aforesaid Government order, another Government order No. 137-HME of 2008 dated 20.10.2008 was issued whereby sanction came to be accorded to the inclusion of Deputy Director, Dentistry, Health Services, Kashmir/Jammu as Members of the Purchase Committee No. 3. In terms of Government Order No. 518-HME of 2012 dated 22.08.2012, the nomenclature of the Purchase Committee came to be changed to Rate Contract Committee on the premise that the said Committee, will fix the rate contract for procuring machinery items. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid Government orders specifically provided that the Chairman of the Committee is at liberty to co-opt any other Member technical / non technical / expert in the interests of administration and patient care. It is stated in the petition that the aforesaid Committee was to undertake the process of fixing the Rate Contracts for procuring machinery and equipment (Dental) for the whole of the Jammu & Kashmir State including the Government Dental College, Srinagar, Government Dental College, Jammu, Directorate of Health Services after following the necessary codal formalities. It is stated that as a matter of standard and formal practice, before issuing any tender notice for procurement of any dental equipments or material for the Dental College, the Heads of the Departments / Experts in their respective disciplines were engaged in the process of consolidating the requisition of the items sought to be procured being the end users of these equipments / material and in the process Head of the Departments / Experts were involved, engaged and associated for consolidation of the requisitions at pre-tendering process. A copy of consolidation of specifications of the equipments and machinery sought to be procured and purchased submitted to the Rate Contract Committee duly signed by the Experts / Head of the Departments forms part of the writ record.
03. After the aforesaid process, Tender Notice No. 02 of 2008 dated 29.12.2008 was floated whereby sealed tenders for supply of various items detailed in Section-I, Section-II and Section-III came to be invited by the office of Purchase Committee No. 3 through its Chairman for and on behalf of the Governor of the Jammu and Kashmir State. The tender documents were to be submitted in sealed double envelopes as technical bid and financial bid as envisaged and indicated in the terms and conditions of the NIT. It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of tender documents from various tenderers, in the first instance, technical
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.