Dismissed

Chandan Prakash Borana v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 May 2023CW/862/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order by a Single Judge Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, dismissed a writ petition filed for release of seized funds and declaration of proceedings illegal. The court held that the release of funds was barred due to pending criminal proceedings and the challenge to proceedings was infructuous post-exoneration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Chandan Prakash Borana Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023/RJJD/012756]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 862/2021

¶4

Chandan Prakash Borana S/o G.s. Borana, Aged About 55 Years, 13, Shanti Vihar Colony, Paanch Batti Circle, Airport Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Zone Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Pali, Rajasthan. 5. Chief Executive Officer, Jaitaran Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti Limited, Jaitaran, Pali, Rajasthan.

¶11

Assistant Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Outpost, Pali, Rajasthan.

¶12

Director General Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Chandan Prakash Borana, petitioner inperson
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mrigraj Singh, Dy. GC Mr. Suresh Charan

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶16

Order

¶17

01/05/2023

¶18

This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution

¶19

of India has been filed by petitioner for the following reliefs :-

¶20

(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to release the amount Rs.89,956/- with interest

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/012756]

[CW-862/2021]

which was illegally detained in (P1-1/2/85/06 dated 29.08.2006) (Annex.01).

¶25

(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the act of the respondent conducting (P1-1/2/85/06 dated 29.08.2006) (Annex.-01) and memorandum of charges and charge-sheet dated 26.06.2007 (Annex.03) may kindly be declared void and illegal.”

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Inspector (Executive) in year 2001 in the Office of Dy. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pali. On 21.06.2006 AntiCorruption Bureau (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘ACB’) conducted trap proceedings against the petitioner and recovered Rs.89,956/- (vide Preliminary Investigation Report PI-1/2/85/06 dated 29.08.2006) from Cashier Bhabhut Ram. The petitioner informed the Authorities that the said amount belongs to the Office and the Department. The Additional Commissioner of Police communicated to the concerned Police Authority of ACB, Pali and directed to take action against petitioner under Rule 17 CCA Rules and against Bhabhuta Ram under Rule 16 CCA. On 09.5.2007 the Registration Cooperative Societies, Pali issued memorandum alongwith charge-sheet against the petitioner levelling certain charges in regard to the amount of Rs.89,956/- that was recovered by the ACB. On 12.03.2009 after completion of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner was exonerated.

¶27

The petitioner present in person contends that, though, the petitioner was exonerated from charges levelled upon him by the Department, however, the Department has not recovered the amount of Rs.89,956/- from the concerned Authorities of ACB. The petitioner has also contended that since it is a public money,

[2023/RJJD/012756]

[CW-862/2021]

(3 of 4)

therefore, it is obligatory upon the respondent-Department to recover the same from ACB. The petitioner made representations to the effect, however, no heed was paid. The petitioner also moved certain RTI applications seeking certain information regarding illegal detention of the amount in the trap case.

¶32

The petitioner present in person also contends that a bare perusal of communication dated 02.07.2019 reveals that the amount recovered belongs to Jaitaran Marketing Society and, thus, the amount is required to be released in the name of Jaitaran Cooperative Marketing Society.

¶33

The petitioner present in person also submits that the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB gave directions for initiating departmental proceedings against petitioner on 08.02.2007, the same is dehors the Rules as the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB is not the Appointing Authority of the petitioner and, thus, the entire proceedings conducted by them is highly arbitrary and unjust.

¶34

Counsel for the respondent submits that as the petitioner has already been exonerated, therefore, the prayer clause (b) does not survive any more wherein the petitioner has given challenge to memorandum alongwith charge-sheet that was issued to the petitioner.

¶35

Counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner has prayed for a direction for release of Rs.89,956/-, that was recovered by ACB at the time of conducting trap proceedings against the petitioner, however, the said amount is subject matter of the criminal proceedings which are going on before the learned court below, thus, cannot be a subject matter of this Court.

[2023/RJJD/012756]

[CW-862/2021]

(4 of 4)

Heard petitioner in-person and the counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶40

At this juncture this Court finds that as far as the prayer of the petitioner in regard to declaring conduct of the respondents as void and illegal in respect of the memorandum of charges and charge-sheet dated 26.06.2007 is concerned, the same has become infructuous as the Department after conducting enquiry has exonerated the petitioner. Further, this Court finds that the amount of Rs.89,956/-, which has been recovered during trap proceedings conducted by the ACB cannot be directed to be released by this Court as the same is a subject matter of the criminal proceedings going on before the learned court below. The writ petition, therefore, being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶41

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶42

55-Sanjay/-

Chandan Prakash Borana v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Prakash Borana v. State of Rajasthan

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

M/S D.J. Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan

Gempar Ram @ Chikku Vs State of Rajasthan

Bholu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Marwar Kesari Shishan Sansthan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Ojha Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanavi Agro Private Ltd.and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.