U M RAVICHANDRAN ADVOCATE MADRAS 104 Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT SPE CBI ACB MADRAS BRANCH SHASTRI BHAVAN MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who is an advocate has filed the above writ petition praying for issue of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to furnish all material particulars to the first respondent in order to effectively complete investigation in all the Districts in Tamil Nadu with respect to construction cremation sheds for Scheduled Caste under Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) Scheme.

(2.) THE petitioner having the interest of the public in mind filed the above writ petition to expose the scandal in the execution of JRY Scheme, viz., the erection of cremation sheds in all the districts in Tamil Nadu. He was inspired with such an intention from the judgment of the Division Bench dated 27. 2.1996 given in W.P.No.15929 of 1995 ( S. Gopalan v. THE State of Tamil and and 6 others ). Since there is no procedure prescribed for initiating a public interest litigation, two letters dated 1.11.1995 and 6.11.1995 sent by one S.Gopalan, addressed to THE Honourable the Chief Justice, Madras were treated as writ petition under the caption PIL and numbered as W.P.No. 15929 of 1995. After going through the salient features of Jawahar Rozgar Yojana and the materials placed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench held as follows: - "Since the material stated by us above, prima facie shows, probable involvement of a hierarchy of high-ranking officers and probably higher ups as well, we are of the opinion that investigation about the working of JRY Scheme in Madurai District should be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. In the interest of Justice, it may require that a high-ranking officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation, in the rank of Superintendent of Police at least, should be entrusted with this investigati on. Since directions for investigation are issued by this Court, the consent envisaged under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, will not stand attracted, as has been observed by the Supreme Court in State of West Bangal v. Sampat Lai , AIR 1985 S.C.195. During the course of investigation, it will certainly be open to the investigating agency to speed its nets to the working of the scheme in other districts as well. We direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a complaint on the basis of the letters of Gopalan, petitioner herein, on whose complaint this writ petition was entertained, as well on the averments made in his affidavit, investigate the matter thoroughly and forward a final report in accordance with law to the concerned Court as expeditiously as possible."

(3.) THE difficulty experienced by the first respondent to extend the investigation to other district is that is that there is no specific order from the Court to that effect. Nor the Government of Tamil Nadu has referred the matter to them. THE other difficulty expressed is that there is an actual resource/man force constraint in the C.B.I, to take up all cases.