SANDEEP JINDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing letter dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P-30), issued by respondent No.2, vide which the petitioner has been indicted without complying with the principles of natural justice, with further direction to respondent No.2 to examine and enquire into the representation dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure P-31) submitted by the petitioner in this regard.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as pleaded in the petition is that he is aggrieved of the impugned letter (Annexure P-30), vide which respondent No.2 has recommended registration of criminal case against the petitioner, he being the Director of M/s. Jindal Speciality Textile Limited and M/s. Jindal Medicot Limited, on the basis of one complaint. The petitioner being Director of aforesaid two companies had floated SPV-Special Purpose Vehicle-Himachal Textile Park Limited, on the ground that the industry was already in existence over the pieces of land, even prior to the submission of the Detailed Project Report (DPR), for setting up of the Integrated Textile Park. The aforesaid complaint was lodged by persons having vested interest. In the complaint, it was alleged that under the scheme for Integrated Textile Park, SPV-Himachal Textile Park was to purchase vacant land, carry out fresh construction and was only then eligible for the grant, to be provided by respondent No.1. There were also allegations in the complaint that the Government's grant was obtained by the petitioner on an already existing Textile Park and by not purchasing fresh vacant land and by not setting up a fresh Integrated Textile Park. The complaint was totally false. Respondent No.1 repeatedly carried out various inspections, right from inception and has certified the fresh setting up of the industrial park, stage by stage. Not only this, on 01.06.2012, nominee Directors of the Ministry and the Project Management Committee, were appointed on the Board of Directors of the SPV, which was raising new construction. In spite of all these verifications, in the year 2019-20, respondent No.2 made recommendation (Annexure P-30) for registration of criminal case against the SPV, which is being floated by the aforesaid two companies, of which the petitioner is Director, on the ground that the Textile Park was already in existence. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the abovesaid recommendation was made by respondent No.2 for registration of the criminal case. Hence, this petition seeking quashing of letter dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P-30). The prayer is also made that respondent No.2 be given directions to examine the representation dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure P-31), given by the petitioner in this regard.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.