ARVIND GEETE Vs. LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India claiming the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is working on the post of Manager in Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Brahmangaon, Dawana, Tahsil Thikri, District Barwani. One Bhola Kumawat made complaint to the Lokayukt Police that he has sold 52 Quintals of wheat to the Society of Brahmangaon, Dawana on 23.04.2014 along with his father. On 25.4.2014 father of the complainant asked him to take the payment from the Society, then complainant met the Manager of the Society, Arvind Geete and asked for payment regarding wheat, then Arvind Geete told that Sendhwa office is not receiving the wheat because it is of poor quality and it should be recalled. Petitioner Arvind Geete also told that if he wanted to deposit wheat and receive the payment then he was required to pay bribe of Rs.8,000/-. Complainant told this fact to his father then his father asked him to make a complaint. Complainant and his father were not in favour of giving bribe to Arvind Geete, hence application was given to the Superintendent, Spl.Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Indore. Thereafter a trap was arranged and the complainant was given a voice recorder so that he may record the voice of Arvind Geete regarding payment of Rs.8,000/-. Complainant went to the house of Arvind Geete and Arvind Geete agreed to take bribe of Rs.5,000/-. Complainant recorded the version and handed over the same to the police. After verification the offence under section 7, 13(1)D and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide crime No.165/14 was registered. Thereafter trap was laid and Narendra Verma was caught taking bribe on behalf of Arvind Geete.

(3.) After registration of offence, Special Police Estt. Lokayukt vide letter dated 24.09.2014 asked the Management Board of Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Brahmangaon, Dawana, Tahsil Thikri to accord sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. In response to the letter, the President of 'the Society' informed the respondent No.5, that vide resolution dated 3.11.2014, it has been resolved to appoint a Legal Advisor to furnish a report within 30 days. The Management Board appointed Shri Mansingh Solanki, Advocate to give an opinion regarding grant of sanction of the prosecution. The petitioner was also served with show-cause notice as to why sanction for the prosecution be not granted against him. On the basis of enquiry report and reply to the show cause notice the President of 'the society' communicated the refusal of sanction vide letter dated 2.12.2014. Subsequently the Additional Commissioner, Co-operative Society, Barwani wrote to the Assistant Commissioner asking him to direct the Management Board of 'the Society' to review its order of refusal for grant of sanction within 7 days. It was further specified that if the order is not reviewed the entire Management Board will be dissolved. Managing Director "Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit" also directed the President of the Society to grant sanction for prosecution. Due to constant pressure created by the respondent, the Management Board vide resolution dated 28.06.2015 accorded sanction for prosecution. Being aggrieved the petitioner has knocked the door of this court.