Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 336 (HP)

BALDEV SHARMA v. CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER

2003-11-18

K.C.SOOD, V.K.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, CJ.—In this petition, the following reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner :— "(a) that the respondents No. 1 and 2 be issued a writ in the nature of mandamus or such appropriate order or direction to expedite the investigations on affidavit (Annexure P-l) in a time bound manner. (b) that the respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to provide appropriate security to the petitioner and to all those including respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, who have put forth correct position through their affidavits in various Courts so that they do not succumb to various Courts so that they do not succumb to illegal pressure/ threats of the highly placed respondent No. 7. (c) that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to ensure that the officers, who have pointed out illegalities of respondent No. 7 in the discharge of their official duties are not subjected to undue harassment and damage to their service careers. (d) that the Honble Court be pleased to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the Honble Court in this matter, who will monitor the progress of the investigations and ensure safety to the life and careers of those who have pointed out illegalities of respondent No. 7 in the discharge of their official duties, and report back the same to the Honble Court for seeking appropriate orders/directions. (e) any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. (f) Service of advanced notices on the respondents be dispensed with." 2. In the body of the petition, it has been averred by the petitioner that respondent No. 7 who is the Chief Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh has committed some acts of omission or commission, constituting offences under the penal laws, and that therefore directions have been sought from this Court qua respondents No. 1 and 2 to proceed against respondent No. 7 with a view to ensuring proper investigation of the matter and to take it to its original conclusion. 3. At the very threshold when this matter came up for consideration before us we pointed out to the petitioner appearing in person that Central Vigilance Commissioner, respondent No. 1 in this petition, has no jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of this petition, as also qua respondent No. 7 who is the Chief Minister of the State. 3. At the very threshold when this matter came up for consideration before us we pointed out to the petitioner appearing in person that Central Vigilance Commissioner, respondent No. 1 in this petition, has no jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of this petition, as also qua respondent No. 7 who is the Chief Minister of the State. Actually in the course of hearing of this case we had suggested to the petitioner that the petitioner could either withdraw this petition or appropriately amend the same with a view to taking out respondent No. 1 from the array of parties and deleting all references to him because of his not being a necessary or proper party in this case, owing to the fact that he exercises no jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of this case or qua respondent No. 7. 4. Petitioner, however, has referred to the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, with a view to buttress his submission that respondent No. 1 has the jurisdiction in the matter, has a role to play and that therefore it is a necessary and proper party. The petitioner referred* to Section 8 of the aforesaid Act in support of his aforesaid contention. Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (Act for short) was passed by the Parliament and received the assent of the President on 11th September, 2003. The preamble of the Act reads thus :— "An Act to provide for the constitution of a Central Vigilance Commission to inquire or cause inquiries to be conducted into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by certain categories of public servants of the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." 5. A bare look at the preamble clearly suggests that the Act is applicable in its ambit and scope only to public servants of Central Government or the public servants of the Corporation established by or under any Central Act, or public servants of Government Companies, Societies, Local Authorities owned and controlled by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the light of the clear and unmistakable language employed in the preamble, a reading of Section 8 of the Act (which was referred to and relied upon by the petitioner) also is equally suggestive of the limited and restrictive scope and applicability of the Act to public servants, either belonging to the Central Government or Corporations or Societies or Local Authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government. If there was any doubt to this, sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, while referring to the "persons" mentioned in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 removed any such doubt by clearly stipulating that the expression "person" means the Members of All India Services serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and such level of officers of the Corporations established by or under any Central Act etc. etc. For ready reference, sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act is reproduced. It reads thus: "(2) the persons referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) are as follows:— (a) members of All-India Services serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and Group "A" officers of the Central Government; (b) such level of officers of the corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government Companies, societies and other local authorities, owned or controlled by the Central Government, as that Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf : Provided that till such time a notification is issued under this clause, all officers of the said corporations, companies, societies and local authorities shall be deemed to be the persons referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1)." 6. In view of the aforesaid observation, therefore, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we have no manner of doubt that respondent No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party in this petition and because the entire petition is so closely interlinked with respondent No. 1 and so directly based upon the role that he is required to play by the petitioner qua respondent No. 7, we have no option but to dismiss the petition on the ground of mis-joinder of parties and its total non-maintainability, on the aforesaid ground. 7. The petition dismissed, no order as to costs.