Disposed

Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2012CWP/15357/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking C.B.I. investigation, holding that the jurisdictional Special Judge has already issued specific directions to the Vigilance Bureau. The Court disposed of the writ petition without issuing further directions, leaving the liberty to the petitioner to produce evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without further directions to the C.B.I.; liberty granted to petitioner to produce evidence.

Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP No.15357 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.15357 of 2012 Date of decision: 13.08.2012

¶5

Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

……Respondents

¶10

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶11

Present: Mr.Charan Jit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶13

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to entrust the investigation in case FIR No.15 dated 3.8.2001 to C.B.I.

¶14

Perusal of record reveals that under orders of this Court, FIRs were recorded and the matter is now pending before the competent jurisdictional Court. The investigating authorities submitted a cancellation report which was rejected by the Special Judge at Mohali on 8.1.2011 and matter has been sent back to the Vigilance Bureau by issuing the following directions:-

¶15

“1. The list of the registrations numbers of 160 trucks through which the fertilizer was allegedly supplied but the said numbers were initially found to be those scooters, motorcycle and cars etc. the preliminary report prepared by the enquiry officer should also be produced before the Court.

¶16

2. The statement of the concerned registration authorities

¶17

or their clerks with regard to those registration numbers

¶18

CWP No.15357 of 2012

¶19

¶20

should be produced, not only statements, rather, photostat copies of the relevant record showing that those registration number were of the trucks should be produced. In case untraced report is submitted by the vigilance bureau is found to be false on this aspect of the case, then the vigilance bureau should get conducted a thorough probe in the entire matter.”

¶21

Above facts shows that the jurisdictional Court seized of the

¶22

matter is alive to the situation, therefore, no further direction needs to be issued by this Court. However, we hope and trust that the Vigilance Bureau will act as per directions issued by the Special Judge, Mohali vide order dated 8.1.2011.

¶23

The President of the petitioner association will be at liberty to produce before the Investigating Officer any evidence in his possession.

¶24

With above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶26

13.08.2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) gk Judge

Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations v. State of Punjab & 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

World Human Rights Protection Council Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Seema Sharma Vs Municipal Council Banga and Another

Dinesh Goel Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jai Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Liyakat and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Narinder Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others