AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajan, J.—The Petitioner who is an advocate has filed the above writ petition praying for issue of writ of Mandamus, directing
the respondents 2 and 3 to furnish all material particulars to the first respondent in order to effectively complete investigation in all the Districts in
Tamil Nadu with respect to construction cremation sheds for Scheduled Caste under Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) Scheme.
The petitioner having the interest of the public in mind filed the above writ petition to expose the scandal in the execution of JRY Scheme, viz.,
the erection of cremation sheds in all the districts in Tamil Nadu. He was inspired with such an intention from the judgment of the Division Bench
dated 27.2.1996 given in W.P.No. 15929 of 1995 (S. Gopalan v. The State of Tamil and 6 Ors.). Since there is no procedure prescribed for
initiating a public interest litigation, two letters dated 1.11.1995 and 6.11.1995 sent by one S. Gopalan, addressed to The Honourable the Chief
Justice, Madras were treated as writ petition under the caption PIL and numbered as W.P.No. 15929 of 1995. After going through the salient
features of Jawahar Rozgar Yojana and the materials placed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench held as follows: -
Since the material stated by us above, prima facie shows, probable involvement of a hierarchy of high-ranking officers and probably higher ups as
well, we are of the opinion that investigation about the working of JRY Scheme in Madurai District should be conducted by the Central Bureau of
Investigation. In the interest of Justice, it may require that a high-ranking officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation, in the rank of Superintendent
of Police at least, should be entrusted with this investigation. Since directions for investigation are issued by this Court, the consent envisaged u/s 6
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, will not stand attracted, as has been observed by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and
Others Vs. Sampat Lal and Others, . During the course of investigation, it will certainly be open to the investigating agency to speed its nets to the
working of the scheme in other districts as well. We direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a complaint on the basis of the letters of
Gopalan, petitioner herein, on whose complaint this writ petition was entertained, as well on the averments made in his affidavit, investigate the
matter thoroughly and forward a final report in accordance with law to the concerned Court as expeditiously as possible.
But according to the petitioner, the first respondent has not taken any initiations to extend the investigation with respect to the working of the
Scheme in other Districts apart from Madurai, in spite of observation of the Division Bench. So, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition in
order to direct the first respondent to investigate in all the Districts of Tamil Nadu regarding the working of the Scheme for construction of
cremation shed for Scheduled Caste under JRY Scheme, thereby to safeguard the public fund and with a view to combat exploitation and injustice
to weaker section of humanity and to protect the under-privileged segments of society, their social and economic entitlement.
4.The respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit especially stating as follows:-
I submit that Thiru P. Chandrasekaran, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, CBI,. ACB, Chennai had already taken over the files of the Directorate
of Rural Development pertaining to the cremation sheds. In respect of 16 districts in the State including Madurai districts. Hence the Director of
Rural Development, Chennai had made available to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, all the relevant records in order to facilitate
a proper and full investigation into matter pertaining to cremation sheds. Since the CBI had collected all the relevant records, the respondents 2 &
3 reasonably believed that investigation had been taken up by them covering all the Districts in the State.
With regard to the execution of the above item of works in the different districts the details are furnished below:-
SI. No. District No. of sheds No. of sheds
taken up and taken up and
completed completed
1994-95 1995-96
1 2 3 4
1 Erstwhile Chengalpattu-MGR 428 111
2 South Arcot Vallar Nil 225
3 Villupuram Ramasamy Padaiyatchier Nil 100
4 North Arcot - Ambedkar Nil Nil
5 Tiruvannamalai-Sambuvarayar 1 12
6 Salem 28 167
7 Dharmapuri Nil Nil
8 Periyar Nil 280
9 Coimbatore Nil 18
10 The Nilgiris Nil Nil
11 Thanjavur 99 172
12 Nagai-Quaid-e-Milleth Nil 96
13 Tiruchirappali 140 118
14 Karur 70 22
15 Perambalur 100 39
16 Pudukkottai 125 65
17 Madurai 70 Nil
18 Dindigul Nil 98
19 Ramanathapuram Nil 54
20 Kamarajar Nil 15
21 Pasumpon M.R.T. 96 47
22 Tirunelveli 53 18
23 Chidambarkanar Nil 52
24 Kanniyakumari Nil Nil
Total 1220 1700
Sl. No. Name of the District Value of works Value of works
(Rs. in lakhs) (Rs. in lakhs)
1994-95 1995-96
1 2 3 4
1 Erstwhile Chengalpattu-MGR 116.40 33.30
2 South Arcot Vallalar Nil 53.34
3 Villupuram Ramasamy Padayatchiar Nil 29.60
4 North Arcot Ambedkar Nil 0.75
5 Tiruvannamalai-Sambuvarayar 0.30 32.79
6 Salem 3..87 45.90
7 Dharmapuri Nil Nil
8 Periyar Nil 90.00
9 Coimbatore Nil 4.95
10 The Nilgiris Nil Nil
11 Thanjavur 17.28 36.60
12 Nagai-Quaid-e-Millith Nil 37.54
13 Tiruchirappali 89.01 44.10
14 Pudukkottai 37.50 16.43
15 Madurai 10.50 Nil
16 Dindigul Nil 29.40
17 Ramanathapuram Nil 16.20
18 Kamarajar Nil 2.48
19 Pasumpon M.R.T 19.29 7.85
TOTAL 294.21 481.23
Surprisingly the first respondent has come forward with a plea in the counter affidavit as follows:-
It is humbly submitted in this context that the Honourable High Court while passing its order in the writ petition mentioned herein only made an
observation to the effect that it would be ''open'' to the CBI to probe into the working of the scam in other districts too. It is therefore submitted
that the Honourable High Court made it only optional for the CBI to extend the probe to the other districts. The Honourable High Court has thus
not given any specific direction to the CBI for taking up the investigation in other districts too. Nor the Government of Tamil Nadu has referred the
matter to the CBI. It is not correct on the part of the petitioner to state that the first respondent (CBI) was indifferent in its attitude with regard to
the other district"".
It is submitted further that there is an acute resource/man power constraint in the CBI to take up all cases. The CBI is already over burdened with
many cases of significant nature which have been registered in the usual course in discharge of its duty as the Anticorruption Agency and the
Superintendent of Police also is overburdened with his official and administrative work.
The counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3 reveal the particulars regarding number of sheds taken up and completed and the amount
spent towards the said scheme. But on a thorough investigation in Madurai, according to the first respondent, has established that the actual worth
of the sheds erected under the said scheme are far below the estimate sanctioned and the investigation in Madurai district is in the final stage and is
nearing completion.
The difficulty experienced by the first respondent to extend the investigation to other district is that is that there is no specific order from the
Court to that effect. Nor the Government of Tamil Nadu has referred the matter to them. The other difficulty expressed is that there is an actual
resource/man force constraint in the C.B.I. to take up all cases.
Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the first respondent has totally misconstrued the
scope of direction given by the Division Bench. The Division Bench after going through the materials felt the importance of the matter and so
observed that in the interest of justice a high ranking officer of the C.B.I. in the rank of Superintendent of Police at least, should be entrusted with
the matter for investigation and it can be extended to other districts also. While so, I am not happy with the stand taken by the first respondent in
para 8 of the counter affidavit. Merely because the C.B.I. overburdened with other work, it cannot shirk its responsibility on that ground. The
Courts are issuing directions 1 to the C.B.I. to investigate the matter only after prima facie satisfying with the importance of the mater affecting the
public and taking into consideration of the efficiency of the C.B.I. The first respondent should have utilised the opportunity to investigate the matter
in question throughout Tamil Nadu as observed by the Division Bench. But, unfortunately, the first respondent is trying to take a stand that there is
no specific direction from the Court with respect to the other districts other than Madurai district. This clearly shows that the C.B.I. wants to
reduce their work on the basis of some reason or other. No doubt taking into consideration of the state of affairs in our country and the work load
of the C.B.I., they have to be provided with sufficient resources and manpower. If the present position is allowed to be continued we cannot
expect qualitative work from them due to more pressure of work. But, at the same time, without taking steps to expand the force quantitatively and
qualitatively, in the interest of public, the C.B.I. cannot shirk its responsibility for want of man power. One should not cut the leg to the size of the
shoe. The judiciary and the public have faith on the efficiency of the C.B.I. Fortunately, Mr. Rajamanickam, the Special Public Prosecutor has
fairly submitted that if the Court directs, the C.B.I. will extend their investigation for other districts also as suggested by the Division Bench. There
is no dispute before me regarding the fullest co-operation of the State Government in assisting the C.B.I. in this matter. Even according to the State
Government, as stated in the counter affidavit, they were under the bonafide impression that investigation had been taken up by the first respondent
based on the materials collected and relevant records covering all the districts in the state.
So, I direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter thoroughly with respect to the construction of cremation of sheds for
Scheduled Castes under Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) Scheme in all the districts in Tamil Nadu and forward a final report in accordance with law
to the concerned Court as expeditiously as possible. I have no doubt that the Statement Government and the authorities will render fullest
cooperation to the C.B.I. for the purpose of the above of the abovesaid investigation.
In the result with the above direction and observation, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, no further orders are necessary in
W.M.P.No. 24086 of 1996 and therefore it is closed.