LAWS(JHAR)-2012-7-293

BABLOO KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On July 05, 2012
Babloo Kumar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the State has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9. Learned counsel Md. Mokhtar Khan is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 6, Central Bureau of Investigation and respondent No. 7, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation. Learned Counsel Mr. Amit Kumar Das is directed to receive notice on behalf of respondent No. 14, the Director, Enforcement Directorate. Mr. Deepak Roshan is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 15, Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Ranchi. So far as notice to the respondent nos. 5, 10, 12 and 12 is concerned, we are not issuing any notice to these respondents which issue may be considered subsequent to the filing of the replies by the parties. However, notice be issued to respondent No. 13.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner may serve the copy of the writ petition on the counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

(3.) The petitioner submitted that income Tax raid as well as C.B.I., enquiry was going on in view of the serious allegation with respect to the illegal gratification to the then Chief Minister Sri Madhu Koda and his associates and for respondent IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Limited, confidential report was already prepared by the office of Additional Director of Income tax (Investigation) and appraisal report was also prepared indicating involvement of this company in illegal gratification in the matter of power segment in Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyut Yojna. The searches were conducted in the premises of the said respondent company on 31.10.2009 as well as on 23.12.2009. The respondent company's office was also covered under the search and seizure operation on 16.02.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that knowing all these acts of the respondent company, yet another contract was given to the same company by the State for which agreement was executed on 15.03.2010. It is submitted that said company has not virtually done any job after award of contract involving crores of rupees.