Mehboob Hasan Sayyed v. The Chief Secretary

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of parties, taken up for hearing.

2) By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner claiming to be a ‘whistle-blower’, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent State Government to appoint independent inquiry committee preferably headed by retired Judge of this Hon’ble Court or retired Judicial Official of the rank of Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge and inquire into the entire investigation conducted in respect of CR No.84/2016 registered by Kopari Police Station, Thane, as to whether investigation was carried out properly, as to whether the entire material in respect of irregularities, serious lapses and illegality while sanctioning and finalizing Kondhane Irrigation Project; b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records and proceedings in respect of the proceeding conducted by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge in respect of ACB Special Case No.36/2017; c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the orders passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge on 18.02.2022 below Exh.68 and order dated 21.05.2022 passed below Exhs.114,119,85,110,120 and 121 in ACB Special Case No.36/2017 purportedly has been passed by exercising power vested u/s. 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure; d) This Hon’ble Court may also be consider to issue a appropriate Writ order in nature of mandamus directing State Government to re-investigate the entire process of sanctioning and approving the Kondhane Irrigation Project and further direct to submit a complete and periodic report to this Hon'’ble Court.”

3) Heard Mr. Shetye, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. Mhatre learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused entire record.

4) It is the case of the Petitioner that, in Public Interest Litigation No.137 of 2012 filed by Dr. Kirit Somaiya & Ors. Vs. Sunil Tatkare, Minister of Water Resources, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. by Orders dated 22nd February, 2013, 11th July, 2013, 1st October, 2013 and 16th June, 2015, the State was directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made therein and to take necessary steps in that behalf.

5) Accordingly, Mr. Hemantkumar P. Patil, Police Inspector, attached to Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thane, lodged CR No.I-84 of 2016 dated 3rd September, 2016 with Kopari Police Station, Thane city, under Sections 420, 109, 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act. That, after conducting the investigation of the said crime, a final report was filed on 11th September, 2017 in the Court of Special Judge, Thane at Thane. The final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed against in all 7 accused persons/public servants under Sections 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 420, 109, 120B of Indian Penal Code of the Act.

5.1) It was the allegation against the accused persons that, they indulged into an act of commission or omission thereby causing loss of Rs.90.04 crores to the Government Exchequer and to get monetary benefits to the partners of F.A. Enterprises Company. The Special Court took cognizance of the said offence.

6) The accused persons subsequently filed Applications under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the case. The learned Judge of the trial Court after perusing the material on record was pleased to discharge the accused persons by its various Orders passed in the Applications preferred by the accused persons.

7) It appears from the record that, the material produced by the prosecution in charge-sheet to substantiate its case did not withstand the judicial scrutiny of the learned Special Judge and it is the reason, the trial court held that, there is no legally acceptable material to proceed to frame charges against the accused persons. In this precise background, the Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the aforenoted prayers.

8) At the outset, it be noted here that, the Petitioner was not a party to the said Public Interest Litigation. It appears from the record that, the State of Maharashtra who is the concerned aggrieved party, has not challenged the Orders of discharging accused persons.

9) Perusal of record indicates that, the Petitioner did not take any pains to record his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. when the investigation of CR No. I-84 of 2016 was being conducted by the concerned Police Officer attached to Anti Corruption Bureau, Thane. He also did not file any Application before trial Court, objecting the discharge of accused by producing additional cogent material in support of his contention. Though the Petitioner claims himself to be a ‘whistle-blower’, after the entire proceedings are over, has now approached this Court for the aforenoted reliefs. Record clearly indicates that, the Petitioner cannot be termed as a victim as contemplated under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C., to have any right in the said case. According to us, the Petitioner has no locus-standi to file present Petition.

10) Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR