Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 194 (JHR)

Lal Mohan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-06

ALOK SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
Order Heard learned for the parties. 2. The allegation of the writ petitioner is that the advertisement 'su.ja.sa.vi-24797 (bhawan) 0809', which has been published in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran' at page 10 of its Ranchi edition dated 4th October, 2008, was never issued by the State Government for the work referred in the said advertisement. Yet, the said advertisement has been published which is absolutely unauthorized and illegal and by this false advertisement, the work contract was awarded by one of the respondents to the contractor. 3. The learned A.A.G. has also placed on record yet another copy of page 10 of the same newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran' dated 4th October, 2008 published from Ranchi itself, wherein the advertisement referred above is not finding place and in place of that, another advertisement, being 'su.ja.sa.vi-24809 (police) 0809', is published. According to the petitioner, it appears that the advertisement (Annexure1) may have been published in one copy of the newspaper, whereas same advertisement has not been published in all copies of the newspaper. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted in the counter affidavit that advertisement (Annexure1) was not issued by the department concerned of the State, whereas advertisement (Annexure5) was certainly issued by the concerned department of the State. However, in the counter affidavit on behalf of the State Government filed on 4th May, 2012, in para 10, it has been stated that “....... all the allegations made in the writ petition are based on surmises because the work has already been completed, therefore, the question of embezzlement, fraud and corrupt practices does not arise” 5. The stand of the State appears to be very strange as well as shocking. If the department did not issue the advertisement (Annexure1) and, in fact, issued the advertisement (Annexure5), then how the advertisement (Annexure1) can be said to be advertisement inviting bidders to compete for the work in question. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that in view of the above, petitioner was very right in stating that it is a case of great embezzlement. The “embezzlement” is having undefined boundaries for the culprits and they may develop, evolve and prepare the modus operandi for committing the fraud and embezzlement, which cannot be foreseen, and therefore, the definition of embezzlement is made wide. 6. The “embezzlement” is having undefined boundaries for the culprits and they may develop, evolve and prepare the modus operandi for committing the fraud and embezzlement, which cannot be foreseen, and therefore, the definition of embezzlement is made wide. 6. We do not find anything from the affidavit of the State as well as affidavit filed on 2nd November, 2012 that after finding the serious fraud whether State has taken any action against any of the officers, who in fact, published the advertisement (Annexure1). This fact which must have been in the knowledge of the officers of State, specifically came in the knowledge of all the higher authorities, still it appears that no action has been taken and even certificate has been given in the counter affidavit filed by the State that they look no embezzlement, because the work has been completed. It appears that the State authorities are yet to understand how the government funds can be embezzled. 7. Therefore, the State Government is given further opportunity to state that, whether the work in question was sanctioned by the authorities competent to take decision; whether decision was taken to publish the work in question inviting the tenders and what was the format given by the State Government, copy of which be placed on the record, who paid the amount of the advertisement and also to disclose how much amount was paid for the advertisement. 8. State is also directed to look into the aspect whether the advertisement (Annexure1) was published in all copies of the newspaper in question and also state on oath that when work was started, when it was completed, who supervised it and how much of the amount has been paid to the contractor and whether completion certificate has been given to the contractor. The State Government is further directed to submit an inspection report of the work in question to show that the work in fact has been completed or not. 9. The above information must be provided to the Court by or before 11th March, 2013. 10. Put up this case on 11th March, 2013. 11. After giving copies of the additional counter affidavit to the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent No.6, the respondents may also exchange their counter affidavits and additional counter affidavits, which they have filed earlier. 12. 10. Put up this case on 11th March, 2013. 11. After giving copies of the additional counter affidavit to the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent No.6, the respondents may also exchange their counter affidavits and additional counter affidavits, which they have filed earlier. 12. Copy of this order is given to the counsel of the State.