Disposed

Syed Feroz v. The Department of Personal and Training

Telangana HC11 Dec 2023WP/31751/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Special Original Jurisdiction, disposed of a writ petition directed at the CBI and police. The petitioner alleged that GST officials extorted Rs. 5 lakhs. The Court directed the CBI to consider the complaint lodged on 04.10.2023 and take appropriate action within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd Respondent (CBI) directed to consider the complaint dated 04.10.2023 and take appropriate action within three weeks.

Syed Feroz Vs The Department of Personal and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 31751 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

it"^d^{F:lga.Slo.fyed ShabbirAged36 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.15_13_81/4,} l'< lU Uolony, Guntur-A.P., present residinq at Kranthinagar, Raod No.02, Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Department of Personal and Training, Rep by its Secretary, Union of lndia, New Delhi.

¶12

The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Union of lndia, Satarta Bhavan, New Delhi

¶13

3 The superintendent of Porige, Anti corruption Unit (ACU) central Bureau of lnvestigation (CBl), Sultan Bazar, Hyderibad

¶14

The station House officer, Saroornagar police station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the inaction of the 3rd Respondent in not considering and Registering an FIR on the complaint dt.o4t1ol2o23 submitted by the petitioner against the Accused named in the complaint as per Law in respect of collection of Rs.5.00 Lakhs towards corruption from the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the provisions of Anti corruption Act, criminal procedure code, Article '14 of the constitution of lndia and principles of Natural Justice and consequenfly to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to investigate and Register an FIR on the

¶17

compraint dt.04r10/2023 submitted by the petitioner against the Accused named in the Complaint as per Law fo(hwith.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under section 15 r cpc praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass interim direction to the 3rd Respondent to entertain comprainl dt. 04/1012023 0f the Petitioner lodged against the GST officials named therein, to investigate and to initiate action as per law, against such GST Officials.

¶20

lA NO:2 oF 2023

¶21

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to pass direction to the 4th Respondent not tq file any charge sheet in Crime No. 61812023 date 05t07 12023 of 4th Respondent porice station pendrng the above wP in the interest of justice as otherwise, petitioner wi, suffer irreparabre hardship.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN

¶23

counser for the Respondents No.'t&2 : sRr K.KRIsHNA KTSHORE,

¶24

(cENTRAL GOVERNMET COUNSEL)

¶25

Counset for the Respondent No.3 : SRI ANIL KUMAR, SpL. pp FOR CBI Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Gp FbR HOME

¶26

The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶29

WRIT P TITION No.3175 of 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard Mr. Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. K. Krishna Kishore, Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶32

The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶33

"to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the inaction of the 3'd Respondent in not considering and Registering an FIR on the Complaint dt:04.10.2023 submitted by the Petitioner against the Accused named in the Complaint as per Law in respect of collection of Rs.5.00 Lakhs towards corruption from the Petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation oF the provisions of Anti Corruption Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the Respondents 1to 3 to investigate and Register an FIR on the Complaint dated 04.10.2023 submitted by the Petitioner against the Accused named in the Complaint as per Law forthwith, in the interest of^justice and^pass

¶34

¶35

such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶36

3. The soecific case of the Detationet in b!'ief is as

¶37

follows

¶38

The petitioner submitted a complaint against two G.S.T Officials by name 1)Mr.Manish Sharma and 2)Mr.V.D.Anand Kumar in visiting the petitioner's business shop by name M/s.Grade one Iron Scrap business on 01.07.2023 and demanded for all the G.S.T. Records and Bills for verification and which are in order without any irregularities

¶39

The petitioner further averred that, inspite of all the G.S.T. Records in order, the G.S.T. officials falsely claimed that there is irregularity in G.S.T. record and threatened the petitioner to impose a fine of Rs.25.00 lakhs on the business of the petitioner herein. After repeated request's of the petitioner, the GST officials started demanding Rs.10.00 lakhs to cover up the irregularity and finally agreed to receive Rs.5.00 Iakhs from the petitioner and directed to pay the said Rs.5.00 lakhs at Nagole area where there is Juice Shop and

¶40

¶41

¶42

both the GST Officials came to Juice Shop and collected Rs.5.00 lakhs from the petitioner on 04.07.2023.

¶43

The petitioner further submits that inspite of receiving Rs.5.00 lakhs from the petitioner both the GST OfFicials repeatedly called the petitioner on his mobile and asked more money to be paid to them and on 05.07.2023 the GST Officials visited the shop of the petitioner again and demanded Rs.3.00 lakhs. Hence, the^petitioner lodged a Complaint with the 3'd respondent for the reason that the GST Officials are Central Government Employees. The 3,-d respondent had not enteftained the^petitioner's complaint. Hence, the present Writ petition is filed.

¶44

PERUSED THE RECORD

¶45

It is the specific case of the^petitioner that, inspite of petitioner's complaint, dated 04.10.2023 against the G.S.T Officials i.e., Mr.Manish Sharma and Mr.V.D.Anand Kumar addressed to the 3'd respondent herein complaining that^the GST officials are harassing the^petitioner and^extracted Rs.5.00 lakhs from the^{petitioner under threat} of^imposing GST fine for alleged irregularities^{but however, the respondent}

¶46

¶47

No.3 had not taken any action in^pursuance to^the complaint, dated 04.10.2023 submitted by the^petitioner.

¶48

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/CBI on instructions, submits that the 3'd respondent would enquire into the matter if the Court directs and would consider the complaint, dated 04.10.2023 submitted by the^petitioner, in accordance to law.

¶49

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, appearing on behalf of 3'd respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3'd respondent to consider the Complaint, dated 04.1O.2023 lodged by the petitioner against two GST Officials namely 1) Mr.Manish Sharma and Mr.V.D. Anand Kumar and take appropriate action in accordance to law, within a^period of Three(O3) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶50

)

¶51

With the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed

¶52

of. However, there shall be no order as to costs

¶53

As a sequel Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAB )aD ASSISTANT REGIST RAR //TRUE COPY// / ^1^/ / SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To, 1 The Secretary, Department of Personal and^{Training, Union of lndia, New} Delhi.

¶56

2 The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Union of^{lndia, Satarta Bhavan,New} Delhi

¶57

1 The Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption^{Unit (ACU) Central Bureau of} lnvestigation^(CBl), Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad

¶58

4 the Stition Hbuse Officer, Saroorn6gar Police Station,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict} E One CC to SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN,^Advocate. [OPUCI b One CC to SRI K KRISHNA KISHORE,^{(CENTRAL GOVERNMET} COUNSEL), [OPUC]

¶59

7 one cc to sRr ANr[ KUMAR, SC^FOR SPL.^{PP FOR CBl,} [OPUCI Two CCs to the GP FOR HOME, High Court^for the^{State Of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶60

I Two CD Copies. BSK RK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1111212023

CC TODAY

ORDER

HE STA 14:
c ,s
)q
() ,'''
::i
.,) 12 0[[ !i3 i,'
o

¶66

WP.No.31751 ot 2023

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

¶69

M
l>fur>>

Syed Feroz v. The Department of Personal and Training

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Feroz v. The Department of Personal and Training

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

Ch. Meenaiah, Vs The Reserve Bank of India

Hyderabad Precision Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, Represented by the Secretary

M/s. Vijai Electricals Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

Y.Venkata Ramana Vs Sri N.Sridhar, IAS

R. Swathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Akhilesh Mehta, Vs State Bank Of India