Disposed

Nirmal Thakur v. Amithabh Bachchan and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jul 2007CRPIL/3/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CJ Swatanter Kumar and J Ranjana Desai disposed of a PIL filed by a journalist investigating alleged forex violations involving Respondent No.1. The bench, noting the appellants had invited document submission, held that it need not determine the controversy and directed the Directorates (Respondents 2-5) to investigate the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 2 to 5, and specifically Respondent 5, to investigate, grant liberty to file documents within 2 weeks, and proceed expeditiously.

Nirmal Thakur Vs Amithabh Bachchan and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 3 OF 2007

¶5

 Nirmal Thakur... ........ Petitioner.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 Amitabh Bachchan and Others... ...Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.B.A.Aloor for the Petitioner.
 Mr.J.J.Bhatt i/by Mr.Anil Menon for Respondent No.1.
 Mrs. Usha Kejariwal, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &

¶10

SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶11

DATED : 19TH JULY, 2007.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

 In this petition under Article 226 of the
 Constitution of India, the petitioner, who claims to
 be an Investigating Journalist and publisher of the
 newspaper under the name and style of "Nirbhay Pathik"
 has prayed that respondent nos.2 to 5 should be
 directed to conduct investigation and proceed against

¶14

 -: 2 :-

¶15

 respondent no.1 for violation of the provisions of the
 Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. According to
 him, there are gross violations and transactions worth
 Rs.30 crores with certain additional interest have
 taken place in favour of respondent no.1. Copies of
 the letters written by him to the Directorate of
 Enforcement are annexed to the writ petition.

¶16

 2. In view of the course we propose to adopt, it is
 not necessary for us to notice the controversy, if
 any, arising in the present petition. Learned Counsel
 appearing for respondent no.1 very fairly stated that
 without admitting any averments made in the writ
 petition, respondent no.1 would have no objection if
 the Competent Authority looks into the matter in
 accordance with law and grants him opportunity in
 accordance with the principles of natural justice.

¶17

 3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to
 5 submits that they would and in fact, have already
 written letters including letter dated 1st May, 2007,
 to the petitioner to submit documents and other
 details of the alleged violation as indicated in his
 representation to the Department. Learned Counsel
 appearing for the petitioner thereupon argued that the

¶18

 -: 3 :-

¶19

 petitioner had applied for certain certified copy of
 the document from the Court of the learned Magistrate
 and has collected even other materials and he would
 submit the same to the Directorate of Enforcement
 within two weeks from today.

¶20

 4. In view of the statements made, it is not
 necessary for us to determine any controversy arising
 in the writ petition. It is settled principle of law
 that statutory body should comply with its obligation.
 The Body should be called upon to perform its
 statutory obligation by the petitioner before invoking
 the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226
 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ
 petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent
 nos.2 to 5 and particularly respondent no.5 to look
 into the matter in accordance with law and grant
 liberty to the petitioner to file additional documents
 and information within two weeks from today. The
 Department shall proceed with the matter expeditiously
 and pass appropriate order after hearing respondent
 no.1.

¶21

 5. In the event, no documents are filed within two
 weeks from today, the Department would be at liberty

¶22

 -: 4 :-

¶23

 to pass appropriate order.

¶24

 6. This petition is disposed of in the above terms

¶25

 while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

 Sd/-

¶27

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

 Sd/-

¶29

SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

Nirmal Thakur v. Amithabh Bachchan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Thakur v. Amithabh Bachchan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil H. Lalwani Vs the Executive Engineer- the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Ors.

Atmasantulana Village Pvt. Ltd. Vs Krishnkumar Jugalkishore Kedia and Ors.

Rameshchandra Kashinath Bacchav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Mukulika S.Jawalkar and Ors. Vs The sate of Mah. through its Secretary LandJD,Mantralaya,Mumbai andAnr.

Rajeshree Dattatraya Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharashtra Law Graduate Association (Mlga) Vs Municipal Corporation of Thane and Ors.