Vinod Kumar Sharma vs State of Punjab and others

Mahesh Grover, J.—By this order we will be disposing of C.W.P. Nos. 13441 of 2010 and 16971 of 2011.

Through this Public Interest Litigation the petitioners seek prosecution of certain officials of the Municipal Council, Fazlika on the ground that these officials had caused immense loss to the Council by abusing their position and putting to risk valuable property of the Municipal Council, Fazlika.

On a prior occasion, a Public Interest Litigation was filed seeking action against the Municipal Councilors on similar allegations and during the pendency of which the Vigilance Bureau of the State of Punjab had registered an F.I.R. against such Councilors under the provisions of Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The matter was enquired into in detail, but the culpability of the said officials was not established in view of the peculiar circumstances which emanated from the allegations itself. Some loan had been raised by the Municipal Council for development works of the area which loan turned out to be bad since the Municipal Council was unable to repay it, leading to the Bank initiating proceedings against the Council before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which further led to the auction of the property of the Council. The auction when held, was alleged to be farcical inviting more allegations of impropriety. The auction was cancelled by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and subsequent thereto the Council sold a portion of the property involved to raise the money for re-payment of the loan which by now stands satisfied.

The matter was investigated by the Vigilance Bureau who concluded by giving detailed reasons that the culpability of the Municipal Council was not established and suggested cancellation of the case against them. This report of cancellation was duly accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction upon its presentation before it which led to the filing of Criminal Revision No. 1071 of 2010 by the petitioners and the learned Single Judge of this Court noticing the public interest involved, directed it to be treated as a Public Interest Litigation and in this manner, the matter has come up before us.

We have considered the matter at some length and are of the opinion that the Vigilance Bureau had initiated the F.I.R. and after looking into the various facets of the case in its detailed report has concluded that the culpability of the Councilors did not stand established which report has since been accepted by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

We are unable to persuade ourselves to exercise our power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to unsettle a process conclusively set to rest by the Court of competent jurisdiction, merely because the petitioners, convinced of the accusations they make, perceive it to be unsatisfactory. To a pointed query by this Court as to whether they perceive the sale of 46 kanals of land resorted to in order to settle the dues of the Bank with equal suspicion and contempt as the earlier action of the Municipal Councilors in raising the loan and attempting to sell the land in question, to satisfy it at an earlier point of time ; the reply was in the negative.

But d''hors this issue for the reasons which we have stated earlier regarding the conclusiveness of the proceedings upon acceptance of the cancellation report, we are of the opinion that the Public Interest Litigation does not need to be persisted with any further.

We thus, order it to be closed.

Both the petitions are dismissed.