Back
Dismisses Petition Challenging Graft FIR Against Laiq Parvez over 48 Land Allotments
The
has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a corruption FIR against Laiq Parvez, former General Manager of the
, Pulwama, over allegations of illegal industrial land allotments made even after the concerned estates had been transferred to state corporations. Justice Shahzad Azeem, hearing the petition under
, held that stifling the investigation at this stage would
"amount to putting a
."
A Checkered Tenure and a Post-Retirement Probe
Laiq Parvez served as GM, DIC Pulwama from June 2017 to February 2018, during which he issued land allotment orders and executed lease deeds in favour of various unit holders. He retired on as Programme Officer, ICDS, Kulgam. Five months after his retirement, the served him a questionnaire dated in Verification No. 07/2018, alleging lack of competence, violation of the Industrial Policy 2016, and with unit holders for personal monetary gains.
The probe originated from a written complaint by Mukhtiyar Yousuf, President of the
, who alleged that DIC Pulwama had become a
"hub of corruption with fixed rates of bribes under the patronage of General Manager."
The formal FIR No. 03/2020 was registered on
under
, and
.
The Competence Controversy
The petitioner's core defence rested on of the Industrial Policy, 2016, which he argued vested in the GM, DIC the power to allot land and execute lease deeds for MSME units with investment in plant and machinery up to ₹5 crore. Senior counsel contended that Parvez acted strictly within his domain, with no abuse of position, no personal gain, and no . He further argued that the Procedural Guidelines of 2017 applied only to new industrial estates to be notified by /, and did not denude the GM of his conferred powers.
The respondent, represented by Senior AAG , countered that the Industrial Estate at Pulwama and Chatpora — measuring less than 500 kanals — had been transferred to vide order No. 48-IND of 2017 dated , and physically handed over on , well before Parvez assumed charge. Despite this transfer, the petitioner made as many as 48 allotments. and findings revealed irregularities in approximately 62 units, including allotments made without approval, and acceptance of physical applications contrary to the online-only mandate.
Court's Reasoning: No at Quashing Stage
Examining the Industrial Policy and the Procedural Guidelines, the Court observed that the GM's authority was not unfettered. Under , the Committee was required to assess the size of the plot as per unit requirements, and under , online registration was mandatory with the GM forwarding indents to / estate managers. The final allotment order, per of the 2017 Guidelines, was to be issued by the officer notified by the Corporation within seven days of SWCC approval, with lease deeds executed by the allottee with / within 60 days.
The Court found the petitioner's distinction between DIC-held land and
/
-controlled estates "wholly irrelevant," noting that the
showed 48 allotments were made of estates already handed over to
. Justice Azeem remarked that once such allotments are established, questions of SWCC clearance timing and whether particular plots were under
control
"are matters for investigation and record."
The Court also rejected the argument that the FIR was based on a vague complaint, noting it was
"the culmination of a formal verification, the report of the
, the
findings pointing irregularity in approximately 62 units"
— with documents of 42 units already sent for
.
When Roles Are Interwoven
Addressing the
angle, the Court observed that the investigation was examining the role of beneficiary unit holders whose cases were earlier rejected but later processed by the petitioner, as well as officers of
/
who remained silent.
"When
is alleged, the role of the petitioner, the beneficiaries and the officers of
/
form part of the same chain of events,"
the judgment noted, adding that quashing proceedings against one accused while investigation continues against others
"would lead to incomplete and truncated investigation."
Key Observations
"To would amount to putting a when the investigation has been carried into different aspects involving a huge chunk of land earmarked for establishment of the industries."
"At the stage of quashing, the court does not conduct a , it may only examine whether the FIR and the accompanying material read with the governing policy, disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence."
"Once it is found that as many as 48 allotments of industrial estates, possession whereof had already been handed over to , were made by the petitioner, the questions whether particular plots were already under control and whether SWCC clearance preceded or followed the orders are matters for investigation and record."
Decision and Implications
Finding the petition "bereft of merit," the Court dismissed it, holding that the investigation must be allowed to reach its . The was returned to the Senior AAG for onward transmission to the concerned police station. The ruling clarifies that at the quashing stage, courts will not adjudicate on competing interpretations of policy provisions where documentary evidence of alleged abuse — including post-transfer allotments and results — remains to be fully evaluated. The judgment also reinforces that in cases with interlinked roles, could undermine the integrity of the overall investigation.
The case, , was pronounced on .
