MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OFINVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, by way of public interest litigation, is filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a criminal case against the respondents 3 to 5 under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigate into the colony licenses issued by the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana during 2005 to 2012 allegedly in contravention of the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 as well as the alleged illegal land deals in the State of Rajasthan creating huge loss to the public exchequer.

(2.) THE petitioner who is an Advocate by profession has filed the petition in person. It is pleaded that the petitioner had made a representation dated12.12.2013 to the Director of CBI seeking the aforesaid relief, but no action till date has been taken by the appropriate authorities. It is also pleaded that he had filed a writ petition with similar prayer before the Supreme Court and that the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 28.10.2013.

(3.) THE representation dated 12.12.2013 stated to have been made by the petitioner to the Director, CBI, New Delhi is placed on record as Annexure - P3. A perusal of the same shows that it was made on the basis of the newspaper reports stating that the respondent No.4 through some companies had bought several hundred acres of land in Rajasthan much above the permissible limit of 175 acres in 2009 itself; that in September, 2010 the State Government amended the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 scrapping the ceiling on land with retrospective effect and making legal all previous acquisitions of land; that the respondent No.4 had subsequently sold the land purchased by him in the year 2009 for over six times the price for the purpose of solar power projects in Rajasthan and that the State Government in bringing an amendment to the Land Ceiling Act and proposing to build solar power projects had acted in collusion with the respondent No.4.