XXX IN RE Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally PIL No.76/2006 was filed by one Nabam Tagam seeking investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Respondent No.7 - Nabam Tuki, the then Minister of Public Works Department and Urban Development in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for illegally awarding contract works to his kith and kin. Surprisingly, later, Nabam Tagam made a request for withdrawal of the Public Interest Litigation, but the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.2.2010 rejected the prayer with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and direction to register the same as Suo Motu Writ Petition. The petition was thus registered as Taken Up case followed with an appointment of Amicus Curiae. The record reveals that it was then heard on different dates. However, on some administrative issues, the members of the Bar resolved to abstain from appearing in Courts. The resolution did not go well with the Bench and vide judgment and order dated 21.8.2015, the Division Bench decided the case on merits directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to register offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Respondent No.7 and persons who have abetted the commission of the said offences. The Division Bench also directed that after investigation final report be submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation before the Special Court at Gauhati which shall try and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Aggrieved, Respondent No.7 challenged the judgment and order dated 21.8.2015 by filing Civil Appeal Nos.1522-1523 of 2017 before the Supreme Court on the ground that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court agreed with Respondent No.7 and vide order dated 6.2.2017 set aside the judgment and order dated 21.8.2015 with a direction that case be decided afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It is in this background, the case has been placed before us for a fresh decision and we have heard respective counsel for the parties in detail.

(2.) The facts in short are these. During the relevant period in 2005 and 2006, Respondent No.7 was the Minister of Public Works Department and Urban Development in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Respondent No.9 is his wife and also the Proprietor of M/s NE Agency. Likewise, Respondent No.10 is sister-in-law of Respondent No.7 and wife of Respondent No. 11. Respondent No.10 is also the Proprietor of M/s Jumsi Aqua Pure (Industry), M/s Engineering Co-operation Society and M/s JCA Construction whereas Respondent No. 11 is Proprietor of M/s Assam Arunachal Agency and M/s Delhi Traders. Also Respondent No. 8 is another sister-in-law of Respondent No. 7 and she is the owner of M/s Marry Associates and Respondent No.12 is the owner of Durga Motors who is the younger brother of sister-in-law of Respondent No.7.

(3.) Apart from these contract works, it is also alleged that Respondent No. 7 opened a fictitious account in the United Commercial Bank to siphon off all the ill-gotten money in collusion with his brother Respondent No.11.