AJAY ARORA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner engaged in the business of liquor has filed this petition seeking directions to the State Govt, to initiate departmental proceedings against the third respondent on the basis of enquiry report dated 2-12-2005 conducted by Shri B. K Vyas, Additional Excise Commissioner.

(2.) IN short, the petitioner's case is that in the reconstituted partnership deed dated 5-3-2002 of firm M/s. Ashok Traders he was inducted as one of the partners of firm. On the strength of the reconstituted partnership deed, the firm could successfully obtain license to sale country and foreign liquor in the Bhopal District for the year 2002-03. Again the firm successfully participated in the bid for the year 2003-04. It is stated that along with the tender document for the year 2003-04 the partnership deed dated 5-3-2002 was submitted. However, on acceptance of the bid of the firm, at the time of award of the contract to the firm some of the partners of the firm with connivance of the third respondent and some other Govt. employees substituted the partnership deed dated 5-3-2002 by another reconstituted partnership deed in which the petitioner's name was missing. According to the petitioner, the third respondent was the District Excise Officer of Bhopal District and he in connivance with mischievious partners replaced the initially submitted partnership deed by another one to deprive the petitioner from the profits of business and to extend undue favour to other partners of the firm. Aggrieved by this act on the part of the third respondent the petitioner made various complaints to the State Govt, seeking action against the employees of the Excise department indulged in the said misdeed. As no action was taken on his complaints, the petitioner had approached this Court through a Writ Petition no. 28262/2003. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 5-1-2004 giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Excise commissioner agitating his grievance and with a direction to the Excise commissioner to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, pursuant to the order passed by this court, the State Govt, got his allegations enquired through B. K. Vyas, the additional Excise Commissioner. In his report dated 2-12-2005 (Annexure p-10) Shri B. K. Vyas found the third respondent and two other Govt, employees guilty of unduly benefiting the other partners of the firm M/s. Ashok Traders and of causing harm to the interest of the petitioner and also found them guilty of meddling with the Govt, record. It is alleged that in spite of this adverse report against the third respondent, the State Govt, is not initiating departmental proceedings against him.