This single bench dismissed a writ petition filed before the CVC seeking investigation into a complaint. The court refused to decide on merits as the matter was pending before a Tribunal (D.R.T.) and kept all petitioner's contentions open pending the Tribunal's outcome.
None. All contentions kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 907-WP1480-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1480 OF 2020
Amrish Ishwarlal Jain
.. Petitioner
Versus
Central Vigilance Commission
Through Section Officer and others
.. Respondents
Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis and S. R. Vakil, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Deshpande, A. S. G. for Respondent No. 1.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2020.
PER COURT:-
.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
learned counsel submits that the directions be issued to respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 to investigate and dispose of complaint filed by the
petitioner which is pending since the year 2017. According to the
learned counsel, the cognizance has been taken of the complaint filed
by the petitioner. The Central Vigilance Commission has directed the
Chief Vigilance Officer to scrutinize the complaint sent for necessary
action, however, no further steps are taken by the authority.
2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents which the petitioner claims to be forged ones and the
1 of 2
2 907-WP1480-2020.odt
complaints with regard to the disbursement of the loan are also subject
matter of consideration before the D. R. T. Aurangabad. The proceeding
is filed before the D. R. T. Aurangabad. The present petitioner is a party
in the said proceeding. All the documents claimed to be forged are
subject matter of judicial proceeding before the Tribunal. The Tribunal
is seized with the matter. The Tribunal can consider all these aspects on
its own merits.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has already filed application under Section 340 of the
Criminal Procedure Code before D.R.T. The petitioner may prosecute
the same and also the complaint of the petitioner before the vigilance
cell. It is for the petitioner to take necessary steps in that regard.
4. Considering the pendency of the matter before the D. R. T. Aurangabad, we are not inclined to consider the petition on merits.
5. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. No costs.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition concerning pending investigation and investigation disposal should be considered on merits given the pendency before D.R.T.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amrish Ishwarlal Jain
Central Vigilance Commission
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court