Partly allowed

Alok Kr. Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC20 Mar 2017Review Pet./14/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, in review, recalled a direction issued on 15.12.2016 requiring the supply of a vigilance report and a six-month timeline for inquiry, noting that the investigation was already nearly complete and the report was available.

What did the court decide?

Recalled the judgment and order dated 15.12.2016; set aside directions to supply report and complete inquiry within six months.

Alok Kr. Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

Case No :Review Pet. 0000014/2017

¶2

Party Name : ALOK KR. DAS Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS

¶3

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA

¶4

Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner [in W.P.(C) No.230 of 2015] as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

¶5

This review petition has been filed in respect of the judgment and order dated 15.12.2016 delivered in the said writ petition. In the said judgment and order dated 15.12.2016, this court had directed as under:

¶6

“When the vigilance report would be available to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the respondent No.5 is directed to supply a copy of the said report to the petitioner as the petitioner is interested in the outcome of the said inquiry. The said investigation by the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) or any other designated competent officer shall be completed by the next 6(six) months. However, this court is not setting up any final time frame for completing the inquiry by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.”

¶7

Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has submitted that when the said judgment and order dated 15.12.2016 had been delivered, the vigilance report was with the State Level Scrutiny Committee but inadvertently that was not pointed out to this court. However, a copy of the vigilance report, Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.230 of 2015 has been with the review petition. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents did not contest that position of the fact and submitted that the vigilance report was available but the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not complete its inquiry.

¶8

The confusion has emanated from these two different statements made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶9

Be that as it may, this Court is satisfied that for the wrong recording of factual position, the said direction has been made in the judgment and order dated 15.12.2016. This exposition is supported by the vigilance report, Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.230 of 2015.

¶10

Having regard to those aspects of the matter, the direction for supplying the report on completion of the investigation/inquiry by the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) or any other designated competent officer or completing the investigation/inquiry by the next 6(six) months has become redundant for non-appreciation of the said vigilance report and accordingly, the said judgment and order is partly interfered with and the said direction is recalled by way of review of the judgment and order dated 15.12.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No.230 of 2015.

¶11

Since it appears that the petitioner is already having a copy of the vigilance report, it is not warranted that another direction be passed to supply such copy. Since the vigilance report is available with the State Level Scrutiny Committee they shall pass the final order following the process as prescribed.

¶12

Accordingly, this review petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.

¶13

Download Date: 8-05-2017 15:05

¶14

1/1

Alok Kr. Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kr. Das v. the State of Tripura and 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

Pranati Saha And 4 Ors. Vs Sangita Saha And Another

Abdul Alim Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Alok Das Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Vs Mrinal Kanti Roy and Anr.

Babul Acharjee Vs Dr. Jayanta Kishore Dev Varma

Rajarshi Dhar And Another Vs Tripura State Pollution Board And 5 Ors.