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.