Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 581 (MP)

Akhilesh Singh Rana v. State of M. P.

2014-05-12

A.M.KHANWILKAR, AJIT SINGH

body2014
Judgment A.M. Khanwilkar; CJ.:- 1. All these petitions/appeals will be disposed of by this common order. The Public Interest Litigation (W.P. No. 11247/2011) is filed for issuance of direction against the statutory Authorities for discharging their obligations and to proceed against the respondents Companies in connection with offences and illegalities referred to in the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000. On the other hand, writ petitioners in companion writ petitions and appellants in those appeals have challenged the circular issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Government of M.P., dated 28.3.2011. 2. It is indisputable that the issue regarding commission of irregularities and illegalities by the respondent Companies was subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3332/1010(PIL) decided by the Gwalior Bench of our High Court on 13.7.2012. As regards the writ petitioner in Sai Prasad Properties Limited/Sai Prasad Food Limited, the Division Bench in the said judgment has said thus:- "L. Sai Prasad Foods Limited/Sai Prasad Properties Limited:- Prima facie, the company and its in-charge persons seem to be committing offences under section 3(1), 3(2) and3(4) of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, Sec. 58B (5 & 5A) & 58C of RBI Act, 1934, and Sec. 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 420 Indian Penal Code. No F.I.R. has been registered against the company with the Gwalior police". 3. That Public Interest Litigation was finally disposed of by giving direction to the statutory Authorities to act in accordance with law. 4. It is indisputable that the Collector is the competent Authority who can inquire into the allegations of irregularities/illegalities referred to in the Act of 2000, if committed by any company or person. If so, the fact that the Additional Secretary, in the circular dated 28.3.2011 has referred to the information furnished by the Reserve Bank of India can be no ground to set aside the said circular. The conclusion and the operative part of the said circular is to direct the Collectors to act in accordance with law against the persons/Companies who have indulged in irregularities/illegalities referred to in the Act of 2000. The conclusion and the operative part of the said circular is to direct the Collectors to act in accordance with law against the persons/Companies who have indulged in irregularities/illegalities referred to in the Act of 2000. The Reserve Bank of India has merely communicated that the writ petitioner amongst the other Companies who are made respondents in the former Public Interest Litigation are non-banking and non-financial Companies and are not registered with the Reserve Bank of India. That does not mean that the Collector is extricated from his responsibility and obligation to proceed against those companies in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2000. Rather, it becomes all the more necessary for the Collector to proceed against those companies as they are not financial or banking companies, as such, who could be controlled only by the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 5. Understood thus, there is no substance in the writ petitions filed by M/s. Sai Prasad Properties Limited/Sai Prasad Food Limited and consequently the appeals filed by the same companies challenging the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge is also devoid of merits. 6. The next question is whether the Collector has taken necessary measures on the basis of representation made by Harish Kumar Lilhare dated 12.5.2011. 7. In our considered opinion, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3332/2010(PIL) dated 13.7.2012, the Collector ought to proceed against the concerned Companies in relation to the irregularities/illegalities committed by them with reference to the provisions of the Act of 2000. That is the bounden duty of the Collector. He should have done that on his own. We are appalled to hear the justification given by the Collector through counsel, that no F.I.R. has been registered against Sai Prasad Properties Limited/Sai Prasad Foods Limited on account of the ad interim order granted by this Court in the writ petition filed by the said companies. 8. Notably, the ad interim order was only directing the respondents (State Authorities) not to take coercive action against the writ petitioners. 8. Notably, the ad interim order was only directing the respondents (State Authorities) not to take coercive action against the writ petitioners. That did not prevent the State Authorities from proceeding in the matter and more particularly, to take the decision of the Division Bench dated 13.7.2012 to its logical end and including to enquire into the illegalities/irregularities committed by the concerned companies/persons covered by the provisions of the Act of 2000. 9. We, accordingly, direct the Collector to proceed in the matter in accordance with law forthwith and take the decision/action to its logical end expeditiously. Writ petitioner in Public Interest Litigation is free to make a detail written representation to the Collector which the Collector must take into account and after due enquiry proceed in accordance with law, if required. 10. All petitions/appeals are disposed of. We direct the Registry to place the Public Interest Litigation (W.P. No. 11247/2011) under caption "Direction" on 14.7.2014 for reporting action taken by the Collector after this order.