Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 274 (JHR)

Thakur Jaswant Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-19

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT This contempt petition has been filed by the applicant, who was not the petitioner in the 'Public Interest Litigation', alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 4597 of 2009 and W.P.(PIL) No. 2772 of 2009 dated 9.9.2010. 2. The aforementioned 'Public Interest Litigations' relates to alleged irregularities in organizing the 34th National Games and the construction of Mega Sports Complex for 34th National Games. Vide order dated 9.9.2010, the Court has disposed of the writ petitions. The relevant potion of the order reads as under: “The grievance of the petitioners is that certain criminal acts have been done for which they are in possession of substantial evidence to establish the case. That being so, the petitioners may choose to file a first information report with the police and the learned Advocate General assures that if the first information report is lodged, the State will investigate the matter with all seriousness. On the suggestion of the learned Advocate General, petitioners may choose to file it before the Vigilance Department. As regards the safeguard of the property so far created for the Games, State is otherwise under obligation to safeguard its properties, therefore, no such directions are required to be given by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid circumstances feels that his grievances have been redressed and the writ petitions will have not been pursued further. Hence, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.” 3. The grievance of the applicant, who is not the petitioner in the writ petitions, is that though First Information Report has been registered on 5.10.2010 but till date nothing has been done by the Vigilance Department and, therefore, he prays for initiation of contempt proceeding against the Opposite Parites. 4. Even, at the outset, the locus of the petitioner has been pointed out and an objection has been raised stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is neither a petitioner in the writ petitions nor an intervener to maintain this contempt petition. 5. Be that as it may, the respondents have also filed show cause stating that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010 dated 6.10.2010 has been instituted in the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi against R.K. Anand, S.M. Hashmi, Madhukant Pathak and P.C. Mishra for misappropriation and embezzlement of public fund by resorting to corrupt practices in connivance with several other persons. 5. Be that as it may, the respondents have also filed show cause stating that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010 dated 6.10.2010 has been instituted in the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi against R.K. Anand, S.M. Hashmi, Madhukant Pathak and P.C. Mishra for misappropriation and embezzlement of public fund by resorting to corrupt practices in connivance with several other persons. In paragraph 18 of the show cause, it is stated that 50 witnesses have been examined and investigation is under progress. 6. Learned counsel for the State also brought to the notice of the Court about the order passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 7719 of 2012 dated 31st January, 2014, which also relates to alleged irregularities and vigilance inquiry in the construction of Mega Sports Complex. In the said writ petition, we have directed the investigating agency to expedite the investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010 and complete the investigation at an early date, preferably within a period of eight months. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and also keeping in view that the present petitioner is neither a petitioner in the writ petitions nor he has sought permission of this Court to file this Contempt Petition, we find no ground to entertain the contempt petition. Accordingly, the Contempt petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.