Dismissed

Vellore District Bus Owners v. The Secretary

Madras HC1 Oct 2021WP/12902/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by a Bus Owners Association seeking to direct the CBI to investigate alleged fraud by NHAI officials in a 2012 concession agreement. The Court held that complex corruption allegations cannot be adjudicated by the Writ Court without records. It directed the CBI to examine the complaint and decide if a prima facie case exists for further action before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent, Central Vigilance Commission, to examine the complaint, ascertain if a prima facie case exists regarding the allegations, and take necessary action.

Vellore District Bus Owners Vs The Secretary — Corruption | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.12902 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.11277 & 11278 of 2016

¶5

Vellore District Bus Owners Association Rep. by its President, No.141/3, New Bye-Pass Road, Next to Hyundai Susee Cars, Vellore – 632 012.

¶6

... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001. 2.National Highways Authority of India, Rep. by its The Chairman, G-5 & 6, Sector – 10, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075. 3.The Central Vigilance Commission, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, “Satarkata Bhavan”, A-Block, GPO Complex INA, New Delhi – 110 023. 4.Central Bureau Investigation, Rep. by it's Director, Plot No 5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. 5.Essel Walajahpet Poonamallee, Toll Roads Private Limited, Essel House, B-10, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110 035.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

6.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sathuvachari, Vellore District, Vellore – 632 009. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to register a case and conduct enquiry into the activities of Fraud and conspiracy committed by the officials of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in conferring undue benefit to the 5^th respondent, by entering into an agreement dated 04.06.2012, by the 2^nd respondent with the 5^th respondent.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali Kumaran for M/s.MC GAN Law firm

¶12

For R1 : Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao Senior Central Government Standing Counsel

¶13

For R2 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶14

For R6 : Mr.C.Kathiravan Government Advocate

¶15

For R3 to R5 : No appearance

¶16

O R D E R (Through Video Conferencing)

¶17

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 4^th respondent to register a case and conduct enquiry into the activities of fraud and conspiracy committed by the officials of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in conferring undue benefits to the 5^th respondent, by entering into an agreement, dated 04.06.2012, by the 2^nd respondent with the 5^th respondent.

¶18

2.A perusal of the complaint, dated 15.08.2015, by the petitioner to the respondent, would reveal that they have raised certain allegations against the officials and also in the matter of conferring certain benefits on the 5^th respondent.

¶19

3.The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent would submit that, all such benefits being granted are in consonance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Once the benefits granted are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, then

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

such a concessional agreement cannot be construed as a fraud or otherwise. The agreement being concessional in nature, certain benefits are conferred under the policy. Thus, the very allegations are untenable. He would submit that, in view of the poor performance of the 5^th respondent, the contract itself was cancelled by the competent authorities in the year 2016 itself.

¶22

4.This Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations and counter allegations relating to certain corrupt activities cannot be gone into by this Court in the absence of examining relevant records. It is contended that the said concessions are given as per the terms and conditions of the contract. This being the nature of allegations and the petitioner being an Association, this Court thought it fit that the 3^rd respondent has to look into the complaint, ascertain whether there is a prima facie case or not, and in such circumstances, appropriate actions are to be initiated.

¶23

5.In this view of the matter, the 3^rd respondent, Central Vigilance Commission, is directed to look into the complaint with reference to the documents and take a decision, if there is any prima facie case in respect of the allegations set out in the complaint sent by the writ petitioner on 15.08.2015. If any prima facie case is made out, then further actions are to be initiated.

¶24

With these directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar(CS)

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

mkn

1.The Secretary,

Government of India,

Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,

¶34

Transport Bhawan,

¶35

1, Parliament Street,

¶36

New Delhi – 110 001.

¶37

2.The Chairman,

¶38

National Highways Authority of India, G-5 & 6, Sector – 10, Dwarka,

¶39

New Delhi – 110 075.

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

3.The Chief Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, “Satarkata Bhavan”, A-Block, GPO Complex INA, New Delhi – 110 023.

¶42

4.The Director, Central Bureau Investigation, Plot No 5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. 5.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sathuvachari, Vellore District, Vellore – 632 009.

¶43

+1cc to M/s.MeGan Law Firm, Advocate, S.R.No.51473 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.52024

¶44

W.P.No.12902 of 2016 SJ(CO) CB(27/10/2021)

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Vellore District Bus Owners v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vellore District Bus Owners v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Karthikeyan, Vs The Inspector of Registration

The Destitute Charitable Trust Vs The District Collector

Krishna Dredging Gompanny Vs the Chairman

A.Chandra Babu(Deceased), Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Jalal Mohamed Khaleelur Vs the Chief Manager

N.Vimala, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu