BALDEV SHARMA Vs. CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the following reliefs have been claimed by the Petitioner:

(2.) In the body of the petition, it has been averred by the Petitioner that Respondent No. 7 who is the Chief Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh has committed some acts of omission or commission, constituting offences under the penal laws, and that therefore directions have been sought from this Court qua Respondents No. 1 and 2 to proceed against Respondent No. 7 with a view to ensuring proper investigation of the matter and to take it to its original conclusion.

(3.) At the very threshold when this matter came up for consideration before us we pointed out to the Petitioner appearing in person that Central Vigilance Commissioner, Respondent No. 1 in this petition, has no jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of this petition, as also qua Respondent No. 7 who is the Chief Minister of the State. Actually in the course of hearing of this case we had suggested to the Petitioner that the Petitioner could either withdraw this petition or appropriately amend the same with a view to taking out Respondent No. 1 from the array of parties and deleting all references to him because of his not being a necessary or proper party in this case, owing to the fact that he exercises no jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of this case or qua Respondent No. 7.