SHAILESH GANDHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in Public Interest Litigation No. 156 of 2006, a full time Right to Information activist and the Convenor of the National campaign for Peoples Right to Information, has filed the above Public Interest Litigation in this Court averring that a major fraud is being perpetrated on the citizens, the slum dwellers and the State by hijacking a welfare scheme to benefit a few at the cost of the public at large. According to him, number of reports had appeared in the media in this regard. In the case of Arun Ramavlal Pathak Vs. M/s. Siddhivanayak Construction Co. and others, misc. Application No. 76 of 2005, the Court of Special Judge, Mumbai had directed a complaint received in such matters to be sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the criminal Procedure Code. Similar directions were also passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the case of Himmat Fulchand chauhan Shri. P. D. Nikumbh and others, misc. Application No. 112 of 2006. To pursue the matter and to know the stage of progress, the Petitioner claims to have filed applications to the Public Information Officer of And corruption Bureau to provide the details of investigations and from the information received it revealed that fraud is being committed. He received the letter dated 9th october. 2006 from the Anti-Corruption bureau which reads as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_266_ALLMR6_2009Html1.htm</FRM> It was also stated that a report had been submitted to the Government. It is stated that slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as "sra") has started the schemes with extra ordinary powers being given to the authority giving precedence over all other laws in force with the intention of providing houses to 8 lakh slum dwellers by 2000. S. S. Tinaikar committee report submitted to the Government exposed such activity to a larger extent but no action has been taken by the State thus sacrificing the public interest. While referring to the basic acts of omission and commission which are committed in a fraudulent manner, the Petitioner specified basic techniques adopted as follows :

(2.) IN response to the application of the Petitioner dated 27th October, 2006 under the Right to Information, reply was given by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 7th November, 2006 stating that the complaints relate to corruption in redevelopment schemes in collusion with Slum Rehabilitation Authority, collector and the Developer. Initially, there were 44 complaints which had gone up to 89. Thus, there was an increase in such activities as 45 more complaints were received. In some cases, investigation had been started but really of no effective consequences. Reference has also been made to an article in the newspaper dna dated 24th November, 2006 stating that the Deputy Secretary (Housing) had directed the SRA not to co-operate with the Anti corruption Bureau's investigation in these complaints.

(3.) ON this premise, the Petitioner had prayed in this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the Respondents to set up a special investigation team to examine all these complaints, furnish adequate staff to the team to complete these investigations expeditiously and to take action against all the erring officers and other private persons involved in these fraudulent activities.