AKHAND PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Respondents, to enforce the provisions of Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (herein after to be referred as D.S.P.E Act) and further for quashing all acts of the Respondent No.3/ CBI, acted upon by them in violation of specific mandate of law including the registration of FIR No. 2 (A)/2005/CBI/SPE-ACU-V, dated 19th of March 2005 and all consequential proceedings.

(2.) THE factual matrix germane in the context for better understanding of the matter and for eventual adjudication may be thus stated that, CBI has filed a charge sheet on 28.03.2008 against the present Petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the P.C Act') and Sections 109,120-B,467,471 of I.P.C. The Petitioner had joined the Indian Civil Services on 15.7.1967 and retired from Government Service on 4th December 2003 from the post of Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that CBI/ Respondent No.3 without following the mandate of law, registered a regular case against the Petitioner and therefore consciously disregarded the provisions of D.S.P.E. Act. Notifications/ Orders including the Notification of Government of India/ Central Government dated 23.8.1990 bearing No. 228/40/88-AVD.II (I) is reproduced below.

(3.) IT was contended by learned senior counsel for the Petitioner that in this case when accused was holding office, on more than one occasion, Government of India asked for permission to initiate investigation by CBI against the Petitioner, and it was refused twice. First such refusal was on 16th September 2002 and second refusal was on 5/6 October 2003, resulting in refusal of permission requested by Government of India for CBI investigation yet, without any permission CBI on 19th March 2005 registered an FIR against the Petitioner and therefore, it is clear that CBI has acted without jurisdiction knowing fully well that the State Government not only not authorized them to exercise this jurisdiction in the general authorization but expressly conveyed their refusal as well.