THOKCHOM ASHALATA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Iswarlal, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Ms.Sundari, learned GA appearing for the State respondents. None appears for the private respondent No.4 in spite of proper service of notice of the present writ petition to him.

(2.) ONLY the facts, sufficient for deciding the matter in issue, are briefly noted. The private respondent/proforma respondent No.4, Shri V.S.Ngainingkhui, is a registered Special Contractor. On 02.11.2007 respondent No.4 was allotted a work order for construction of the works namely: Sewerage Project Phase -I (Zone -I) for Imphal Town with French Assistance (State component) SH: Lying of RCC Sewer Network for Primary Sewer 700 mm dia KY "03 to KY 07" from Kangjeibung Entrance upto Governor 2nd Gate under Work Order No.EE/D & SD/AC - 29/WO/2007 -09/128 dated 2.11.2007 issued by the Executive Engineer, Drainage & Sewerage Division, PHE Department, Manipur and the Agreement Book No.EE/D&SD/AC -II(B)/AGT -2007 -08/127(a) dated 2.11.2007.

(3.) THE respondents have filed their affidavit in opposition wherein the respondents are not denying that the S.P., Vigilance, had already registered the said case but the only case of the respondents in their affidavit in opposition is that the enquiry could not be completed because of want of documents. From the above fact it is clear that the respondents had already admitted in their affidavit in opposition that the Vigilance Case had been registered but enquiry of the said case could not be completed because of want of documents. The I.O., of the said Vigilance case is duty bound to complete the enquiry without undue delay and the enquiry of the said criminal case cannot be kept pending in perpetuity only for want of some documents. The I.O., should make an endeavour to complete the enquiry and the enquiry cannot be pending in perpetuity for certain pretext.