Allowed

Prashanth Projects Limited v. Central Vigiliance Commission & Ors.

Delhi HC2 May 2024W.P.(C)/6104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner, a contractor, complained about non-receipt of status updates from the CVC regarding allegations against IOC officials. The Court did not proceed with the petition on merits but directed the CVO to expedite the inquiry in accordance with CVC circulars.

What did the court decide?

Directing the CVO to complete the procedure as expeditiously as possible in accordance with CVC circulars.

Prashanth Projects Limited Vs Central Vigiliance… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6104/2024

¶4

PRASHANTH PROJECTS LIMITED ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui and Mr. Ashirvad Kumar Yadav, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

CENTRAL VIGILIANCE COMMISSION & ORS ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate for R-1.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

% 02.05.2024 CM APPL. 25333/2024 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 6104/2024 & CM APPL. 25334/2024

¶13

The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking status of the complaints lodged by the Petitioner with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) against the officials of the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC).

¶14

The facts on record reveal that the Petitioner is a contractor of the Indian Oil Corporation. Material on record discloses that certain disputes arose between the Petitioner and IOC and the Petitioner has filed complaints with the CVO/CVC alleging malpractices by the officials of the Indian Oil Corporation.

¶15

It is stated that the Petitioner gave many complaints and three of the complaints, namely, Complaint No. 4919/2023 dated 12.01.2023, Complaint

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2024 at 14:47:48

¶17

No.5594/2023 dated 21.01.2023 and Complaint No.5595/2023 dated 21.01.2023 were registered.

¶18

It is stated that after registration of the complaints, the Petitioner has been kept in dark about the progress in the complaint. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also points out various circulars brought out by CVC showing that it is mandatory on the department to show the result of the complaint to the complainant.

¶19

It is stated by learned Counsel for the Respondent states that as far as Complaint No.4919/2023 is concerned, a decision has been taken and a detailed investigation has been completed by the CVO and further clarification has been sought on the investigation report by the CVO. He further states that the other two complaints have also been clubbed with Complaint No. 4919/2023. The statement is taken on record.

¶20

As per the statement given by learned Counsel for the Respondent, three complaints are alive and are under consideration by the CVO. This Court is not inclined to proceed further in the present writ petition at this juncture. The CVO is directed to complete the procedure as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the circulars passed by the CVC on this aspect.

¶21

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach this Court in case need arises in future.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

¶23

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶24

MAY 2, 2024 hsk

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2024 at 14:47:48

Prashanth Projects Limited v. Central Vigiliance Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashanth Projects Limited v. Central Vigiliance Commission & 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

Jai Suspension Systems LLP Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-4, and Anr.

O.A. Associates Vs Union of India & Anr.

Virendra Kumar Vs Director General Border Roads & Ors.

Ram Sugarat & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Rahul Kumar & Ors. Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Brahma City Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 73

Mangal Sain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34(1), Delhi & Anr.

O.A. Associates Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ram Sugarat & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Hari Oil and General Mills Vs Union of India & Anr.

Yulduzhan Urakova Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Mr Prabhjot Singh Dhillon

S Vs Union of India & Ors.