ARVIND KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been fifed in public interest by individual citizens and organisations of different complexions, in substance seeking direction, to the Central bureau of Investigation (CB enquire and investigate the caslating to fraudulent excess. eitures/drawals in the Animal-Husbandry department o Government.

(2.) The crux of the petitioners' case is the officers of the Animal Husbandry department-bt the district and the Secretariat levels-in collusion. with teasury Officers officershe Finance Department at the secretariat leveh the blessings and support of the Government, systcaliy drew huge sums of money in excess ofgrant, i. e. the financial sanction against fake allotment ordvouchers; etc. According the petitioners, because of the involv and bias of the high-ups, fair investigation into-what has come known as Animal Husbandry Scam instate, is not possible.

(3.) Thte does not deny that there have been excess drawalr fraudulent in nature. In paragraph 43 of the counter-affidavit in C. W. J. C. No. 602 of 1996 (R) it has been stated, "as a matter of fact, it is a case of fraud and forgery and the money fraudulently drawn from the consolidated fund of the State". According to the State, while it was aware of the excess drawals, which is an usual phenomenon in the State Financing, it had no knowledge that the drawals were fraudulent in nature until January 1996. And when the fraud came to light prompt action was taken by filing criminal cases, instituting administrative enquiry and so on.