The court emphasized that the writ petition and any arbitration award will not be considered as evidence in the trial, and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.

JUDGMENT :

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.RCCHG2014A0021 dated 09.12.2014 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’), registered at ACB, CBI, Chandigarh as well as report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 10.10.2016 and further proceedings pending before Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, being misuse of process of law.

2. It is worth noticing that at the stage, when the case before the trial Court/Special Judge, CBI was fixed for framing of charge, this petition was filed in the year 2016 and on 06.12.2016, it was directed that charge be not framed. Interim order is continuing, as the arguments are not advanced on behalf of the petitioners.

3. The Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, vide request letter dated 16.02.2021, has sought permission for resuming the trial process in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. CBI, 2018 (2) RCR (Crl.) 415, wherein it is held that the cases, which are at trial stage and proceedings are stayed by the higher Court, after a lapse of six months, said order will automatically be lapsed, unless it is extended by a speaking order and the trial Court may, on expiry of aforesaid period, resumed the proceedings.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR was registered after conducting a preliminary inquiry against S.K. Bansal, the then Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (for short ‘MCC’), S.R. Aggarwal, the then Superintending Engineer, MCC, Public Health, R.C. Diwan, then Executive Engineer, MCC, Public Health and M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. and its partners i.e. petitioners. It is further submitted that on completing of the inquiry, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against six persons i.e. R.C. Diwan, Bishwadeep Dutta, G.M., M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Jimmy Subawalla, Director, M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Mysa Ganesh, Director, M/s Outdoor Communication Pvt. Ltd. and two firms i.e. M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Outdoor Communication Pvt. Ltd. through its directors, whereas S.R. Aggarwal and S.K. Bansal were kept in column No.2, as no chargesheet was presented against them. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are that in the year 2007, two tenders for operation and maintenance of 40 toilet blocks in various complexes of Chandigarh were floated by MCC and these 40 number of toilet blocks were in two parts. Part A of the work consisted of display of advertisement on the wall of the toilet blocks and Part B was of displaying the advertisement on the connecting passage. Similarly, for 46 number of toilet blocks, tenders were floated by MCC for earning the revenue with a stipulation that the agency will quote licence fee per toilet and minimum proposed licence fee per toilet per month was Rs.500/- for each toilet in each group of toilet blocks per month for a period of five years. It was also submitted that the contractor will pay the advertisement tax in respect of the advertisement displayed on the wall of the toilet along with licence fee and other taxes leviable from time to time. Petitioners Jimmy Subawalla and Bishwadeep Dutta being the authorized representatives of M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. submitted their tender with MCC and demanded an amount of Rs.9800 per month per toilet. Later on, there were some negotiation between the petitioners and MCC regarding waiving off advertisement fee and the tax, however, it was specified by MCC that no remission for licence fee will be allowed, in case any advertisement space remains un-utilized. It was also provided that the contractor will comply with the byelaws and legal orders of the local body or any public authority. As per Clause 7 of the tender, the contractor