Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3138
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Yashwant Varma, J.
Sunil Kumar Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & 5 Others - Respondent
Public Interest Litigation (Pil) No. - 65527 of 2015
Decided On : 04-12-2015
For the Petitioner: Sunil Kumar Srivastava.
For the Respondent: Sudhir Bharti.
The court has the discretion to issue directions for the expeditious completion of investigations in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Public Interest Petition - Alleged Malpractices in Railway Appointments - The court ordered the expeditious completion of an ongoing investigation into alleged malpractices in railway appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Member of the Bar, filed a public interest petition seeking the completion of an enquiry into alleged malpractices in railway appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the petition seeking enforcement of a direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal due to an ongoing investigation. However, the court ordered that the investigation should be taken to its logical conclusion expeditiously.
Issues: Enforcement of direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, expeditious completion of investigation
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the ongoing investigation and the interest of justice, leading to the order for the expeditious completion of the investigation.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction for the expeditious completion of the investigation.
Based on the observations contained in a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3 March 2004 and a judgment dated 17 October 2003, the petitioner, who is a Member of the Bar, has instituted these proceedings in the form of a public interest petition seeking the completion of an enquiry in regard to alleged malpractices in the making of appointments in the establishment of the railways. The petitioner has disclosed that in pursuance of a disclosure under the Right to Information Act, he was informed on 22 July 2015 by the Vigilance Branch of the Northern Railways that an investigation is under progress.
2. We are not inclined to entertain a petition of this nature seeking enforcement of a direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal since it has been stated that an investigation is under progress in the matter. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the effect that the investigation should be taken to its logical conclusion expeditiously. We order accordingly.
3. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
