Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 570 (JHR)

Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Office of the Lokayukta

2019-02-27

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : 1. It has been submitted at the outset by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent that the complainant, namely, Hari Nandan Singh, has not been impleaded as party-respondent in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be allowed to implead the complainant, namely, Hari Nandan Singh Singh, as party-Respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition. 3. In view thereof, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the complainant, namely, Hari Nandan Singh, as party-Respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition. 4. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the order dated 18.09.2018 (Annexure-4), passed in Complaint Case No. 02/Lok (Police) 19/2015 has been challenged, whereby and whereunder, the learned Lokayukt has directed the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi to take appropriate action against Shri Nageshwar Prasad Singh the then Officer-in-charge, P.S., Chas and Shri Janardan Mishra, the then Police Inspector, Chas, P.S., Chas. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that a proceeding under the provision of Section 144, Cr.P.C. has been initiated by one Shri Hari Nandan Singh, resident of Sector-4/D, Quarter No.2363, B.S. City for restraintment of the land at Mouza-Telidih situated over Khata no. 24, Plot No. 1017 comprising an area of 0.25 acres and the said proceeding has been registered, as M.P. Case No. 412 of 2014. 6. The final order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas on 30th August, 2014, whereby and whereunder, the proceeding initiated under Section 144, Cr.P.C., wherein, the complainant, namely, Shri Hari Nandan Singh was the first party and one Sachu Nonia was the second party. In the ultimate paragraph of the said order, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas has passed an order to keep the land in question, reserved for the first party and the second party has been directed to take possession in the rest of the land and on the basis of such direction, the prohibitory order has been vacated, so far as it relates to the first party, but the same has been made absolute, so far as the second party. On the basis of the said order, the Circle Officer, Chas vide Memo No. 343, dated 24.02.2014 and the Memo No. 406, dated 04.03.2015 has restrained in making construction over the said land by the second party, the petitioner, namely, Nageshwar Prasad Singh, who was posted during the relevant time as the officer, In-charge, Chas Police Station, Chas, who has not taken appropriate action and therefore, the learned Lokayukt after accepting the complaint made by the complainant, namely, Shri Hari Nandan Singh, has passed the order impugned. 7. According to Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, when the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas being the competent authority to initiate action under Section 144, Cr.P.C. has made prohibitory order absolute against the second party, the complainant, herein, the petitioner in the capacity of the officer In-charge, Chas Police Station, Chas, was duty bound to follow the aforesaid direction, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas in M.P. Case No. 412 of 2014, dated 30th August, 2014 since the said order has never been questioned and therefore, he has committed no illegality. 8. He further submits that so far as the direction, passed by the Circle Officer, Chas vide Memo No. 343, dated 24.02.2014 and the Memo No. 406, dated 04.03.2015 is not binding in view of the fact that Circle Officer is subordinate to that of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, and Sub Divisional Officer has been empowered under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to act in pursuance to the said provision, hence, no illegality has been committed. 9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the sole respondent has sought for two weeks’ time to obtain instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Ad-interim Relief:- 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some interim protection may be given to the effect that during pendency of the writ application, no coercive steps, as against the petitioner may be taken. His submission is that, when the petitioner in the capacity of the Officer-in-charge of the Chas Police Station, Chas has acted in pursuance to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas in M.P. Case No.412 of 2014, dated 30th August, 2014, he has not committed any illegality. His submission is that, when the petitioner in the capacity of the Officer-in-charge of the Chas Police Station, Chas has acted in pursuance to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas in M.P. Case No.412 of 2014, dated 30th August, 2014, he has not committed any illegality. His further submission is that the learned Lokayukt before passing the said order ought to have considered the order, dated 30th august, 2014, which has been passed against the complainant, but, he has chosen not to challenge it and therefore, the said order has become final, so far as the complainant is concerned and once the order has become final by virtue of challenging or questioning the same before the higher Forum, the complainant should not have approached to the learned Lokayukt. His further submission is that the learned Lokayukt ought to have taken into consideration this aspect of the matter while passing order of recommendation to take appropriate action against the petitioner at the end of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 11. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering his submission that the order dated 30th August, 2014, passed in M.P. Case No. 412 of 2014 by the Sub-Divisional officer, Chas in a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C., wherein, restraintment order has been passed, making it absolute against the complainant, the same has not been challenged, since no reference of the said Act has been made in the order impugned, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that assailing the order dated 30th August, 2014, passed in M.P. Case No. 412 of 2014 is not reversed, the same is binding upon the petitioner and in view of such submission, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has got prima facie case in his favour as also, if the interim protection would not be granted, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss, because he is a public servant and, as such, balance of convenience is also in his favour. In view thereof, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date i.e. 09.04.2019. 12. List this case on 09.04.2019 under the same heading. 13. Let notice be issued upon the newly impleaded party-respondent no.2 both under Registered Post with A/D as well as ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within a week. 14. 12. List this case on 09.04.2019 under the same heading. 13. Let notice be issued upon the newly impleaded party-respondent no.2 both under Registered Post with A/D as well as ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within a week. 14. Notice is made returnable on 09.04.2019. 15. In the meanwhile, counter affidavit, if any shall be filed by the respondents. Ordered accordingly.