This single-paragraph dismissal holds that the petitioner lacks locus standi to press for an enquiry against respondent no. 4, as the matter is already being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2826 of 2015
Vishal Chemfood Industries, a partnership firm having its registered office at T.C.X. South 23, P.O. Ganohdham, Dist. Bhuj (Kutch), Gujarat through its authorized signatory Goutam Choraria, Son of Kamal Kumar Jain, resident of 14, Pollock Street, 2nd Floor, P.O. & P.S. Hare Street, Dist. Kolkata-700001
… Petitioner
-Versus-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shishir Suman, A.C. to Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
04/20.02.2020. Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Shishir Suman, learned A.C. to Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for showing cause by the respondents as to what lawful steps has been taken by the Vigilance Department in pursuance to the direction passed by the State vide letter dated 24.08.2012 in relation to the enquiry into the affairs of the private respondent for supply of non-iodised refined salt for the financial year 2008-09.
-2-
It transpires from paragraph 13 of the writ petition that vide letter dated 05.08.2014, the Department of Vigilance communicated with the respondent-Department of Food Supplies stating that the main files of the tender in question of 2008 has been referred by them to the Investigating Officer, Vigilance Bureau in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 09 of 2009. In that letter, the Department of Vigilance also sought an opinion as to whether the matter involved in the aforesaid P.S. Case and enquiry requested for, are two different matters requiring separate enquiries. It has been stated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the matter has already been transferred to the CBI vide R.C. Case No. 05 of 2010. The petitioner is seeking relief for enquiry against respondent no.4. It is between the department concerned to enquire into the matter. As per paragraph 14 of the writ petition the matter is being investigated by the CBI, the petitioner has got no locus standi to press for such prayer. Hence, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to seek an enquiry from the Department of Vigilance when the matter has been transferred to the CBI.
Whether the High Court should intervene in a routine departmental enquiry when the investigating agency has already taken over the matter.
Vishal Chemfood Industries
The State of Jharkhand
The Vigilance Department
The Secretary, Department of Food
M/s Ankur Chemfood Ltd.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
