VINAY RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAIN , CJ (Oral). 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed off finally.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayers:

(3.) 06.2013 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 12 of 2013. He further submitted that although as per observation/liberty granted in the order dated 04.06.2013 referred above, the police has submitted a supplementary charge -sheet, but the manner in which the petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2013 was illegal and mala fide. Therefore, the present writ petition was filed for passing an order for judicial enquiry. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the petitioner filed a representation dated 03.12.2013, Annexure P -1 -, to the Hon'ble Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, Hon'ble Governor of Sikkim, Gangtok and Hon'ble Chief Minister of Sikkim, in this regard, but no action has been taken on his representation. He also referred a letter during course of arguments of May, 2014 of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security -II Division (Legal Cell) addressed to the Secretary (Home), Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, whereby representation of petitioner has been forwarded but till date no action has been taken by the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that either an order of judicial enquiry be passed or the respondent -State be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing.