SUVASBEN JAYESHBHAI PATEL vs SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM & ORS.

RULE. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

The present petition is filed under Articles 226, 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India praying as under:-

"9. (A) to quash and set aside the impugned decision dated 20.08.2012 of respondent no.1 Special Investigation Team also known as District Land Vigilance Committee on the ground of same being ultra vires, erroneous, illegal and unconstitutional;

(B) to direct the State CID Crime to investigate into the complaint of the petitioner at Annexure-C (Colly);

(C) in the alternative and on the conclusion of the Hon'ble Court that constitution of respondent no.1 Special Investigation Team is valid, be pleased to direct respondent no.1 Special Investigation Team to reinvestigate into the complaint of the petitioner at Annexure-C (Colly) on its own without delegating any function of investigation to subordinate and submit a final reasoned report after hearing the petitioner;"

Though the validity of the constitution of SIT /District Land Vigilance Committee is questioned by the petitioner, however, the petitioner would restrict his claim to the merits of his complaint and the action of the SIT and the outcome before the SIT.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to the decision of the SIT which is at Annexure-A, wherein the complaint of the petitioner is dealt with and an opinion is given that the dispute is civil in nature and therefore, outcome of the civil proceedings would be binding to all the authorities concerned.

4.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that though from the complaint filed before the Police authority and thereafter upon the same being forwarded to the SIT, cognizable offence is disclosed, yet no action has been taken by the authority on the allegations made in the complaint. He submitted that the entire proceeding of the SIT has been conducted behind the back, where the complainant, though an important element of prosecution, has not been given any weightage. He also drew attention of this Court to the report given by the SIT to the application under the Right to Information Act and indicated that as per the record of the SIT, there are two opinions of the inquiry carried out by two different Police Officers of the rank of Dy.SP and both these officers have come to a contradictory conclusion, which is indicative of the fact that there is substance in the complaint of the petitioner.

As the petitioner is restricting his claim insofar as action of the SIT is concerned, it would be appropriate to direct that the SIT /District Land Vigilance Committee of Anand may furnish all the record of the inquiry conducted in connection with the application of the petitioner including on which the Committee has relied upon to arrive at conclusion. Such record be provided to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. It would be open for the petitioner to agitate the grievance, if any, which may survive after the record is made available to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.