STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. BALARAM HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Let the appeal be registered and the stamp reporter is to append the report within 48 hours.

(2.) In pursuance of an order passed by this Court to consider the prayer for grant of permit in the route Calcutta - Purulia to the petitioner, the State Transport Authority took a resolution for grant of permit in the route Howrah - Purulia. But at the time of granting the permit, it was granted in the route Calcutta - Purulia. The learned Single Judge, in the order dated 8th of August, 2005 was pleased to find that this was done in connivance with some of the officers who have been named in the said order as it was evident from the report submitted by the Secretary, State Transport Authority on 5th of August, 2005. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct an investigation by the CBI and also for initiation of a departmental proceedings against the officers named in the said report prohibiting plying of the vehicle by the respondent/applicant. Against the said order dated 8th of August, 2005 these two appeals have been filed; AST 1141 of 2005 has been filed by the State of West Bengal and AST 1139 of 2005 was filed by the respondent/applicant/permit holder. It appears that the learned Single Judge had found that the department was negligent in taking appropriate steps.

(3.) Mr. Roy, the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that this is not a case fit for directing investigation by the CBI. He next contended that until and unless a case is initiated against an offence, no investigation is permissible. However, there is no bar in causing an enquiry in the matter. He also pointed out that unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the State machinery has not been vigilant or has not been activated, it is not open to the Court to direct CBI enquiry. According to him, the matter was brought to the notice only on 4th of August 2005 whereon the letter dated 5th of August, 2005 was placed before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it is not that the department was very negligent. At the same time, he pointed out that there is a direction for filing of affidavit by the Secretary, State Transport Authority. Therefore, the decision could have been taken, if at all, after the said affidavit was filed. Such order can be passed only after giving opportunity which the learned Single Judge was pleased to give by giving direction for affidavit. Therefore, the direction to cause an investigation by the CBI was passed in a little haste. However, Mr. Roy makes it clear that in appropriate cases, he cannot oppose enquiry by CBI and the High Court has power to direct such an enquiry. He relied on the decision in Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineer Services U.P. & Ors. vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr., 2002(5) SCC 521, in support of his contention. He also points out to the resolution which was for the purpose of granting of permit in the route Howrah - Purulia. He also drew our attention to the subsequent resolution at page 32 of the petition where the State Transport Authority had taken a decision'through a subsequent resolution to recall the permit in the route Calcutta - Purulia and to allow the permit holder to ply on the route Howrah - Purulia and also to initiate a departmental enquiry on the subject and the decision was subject to further decision that might be taken by the Principal Secretary, subject to the CBI enquiry. In these circumstances, Mr. Roy contends that there are certain guidelines which are supposed to be followed. Therefore, he prays that the part of the order directing CBI investigation be stayed.