Binod Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner-Mr. Binod Agarwal who was serving in the Indian Navy and jointed SEEPZ SEZ, Mumbai as an IT Advisor has preferred the present petition seeking action against Respondent No.3-Mr. Baldev Singh, who was then Development Commissioner of SEEPZ SEZ, Mumbai. The has levelled several complaints alleging corruption by Respondent No.3, before various authorities including the PMO, CVC, CBI, Ministry of Commerce, etc. Further complaints were filed by him on 18th June, 2018 before two police stations. However, it is his case that he is being harassed in view of these complaints and no action is being taken by authorities such as the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter “CVC”)/Respondent Nos.1&2. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been instituted seeking the following reliefs: “(a) that this hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to issue appropriate writ, directing the Respondent No.1 to take appropriate action on the Petitioner’s Complaints as mentioned below in accordance with the law; (i)Complaint dated 19.5.2020 at

(iii) Complaint dated 26.08.2019 at

ANNEXURE-14

[Page Nos. 89], and Communication by Vigilance Officer SEEPZ SEZ Registered by CVC vide Complaint NO. 130092/2019/vigilance-6 And upon being satisfied that the facts as mentioned in the complaints ought not to be investigated by the Respondent No.2, the same be transferred to C.B.I for investigations & this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for timely reports from the Respondent No.1, in the interest of justice; b. That this Hon’ble Court will be graciously pleased to call for records of the investigation of corruption from Respondent No.2 and after examining the same issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing Respondent No 1 to inquire to the extent under prevention of corruption Act and hand over matter to CBI or SIT for detailed further investigation for which PE is already completed by Respondent No 2 based on order of Respondent No 1 under Prevention of Corruption Act at

ANNEXURE-2, [Page Nos. 50], c. That this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to Direct Respondent No 1 to implement hiring of Independent External Monitor (IEM) as per Manual of procurement of Goods 2017,Preferably retired Hon’ble High court Judges so as to implement Integrity pact in all department of Central Government. d. Pass such order and further orders as may be just and necessary be granted. e. Cost of the application may be provided”

3. Notice was issued in this matter on 8th November, 2021, on which date the Petitioner was to satisfy the Court on the aspect of maintainability of this petition. Thereafter, on 18th January, 2022, Respondent No.3 had submitted that various petitions were filed by the Petitioner before the Bombay High Court with regard to the same issue, which had not been disclosed by the Petitioner. The Court had then directed Respondent No.3 to file the details of the said petitions.

4. Today, various orders have been placed before this Court in matters that seem to have been filed by the same Petitioner, before the Bombay High Court, Delhi High Court and the Lokpal. Moreover, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.3 that on 20th June, 2019, the Petitioner and various authorities had entered into consent terms, wherein it was clearly recorded that the Petitioner would withdraw all litigation filed before various courts and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in respect of the SEEPZ SEZ, Mumbai. The said consent terms were accepted by the Bombay High Court and vide order dated 20th June, 2019 in Mr. Binod Sitaram Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.5182 of 2018], the consent terms were also taken on record. The relevant extracts of the said order read as under:

5. Ld. counsel for Respondent No.3 further submits that the proceedings which were pending before the CVC pursuant to the complaints made by the Petitioner, have also now been closed. This fact is confirmed by the letter dated 19th July, 2022. In view of this, he submits that nothing further survives in this petition.

6. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is pointed out by ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the CVO of the Department of Commerce had submitted his report recommending that the case be handed over to the CBI. However, the said recommendations were rejected and only a showcause notice was issued. Respondent No.3 was, thereafter, also compulsorily retired. Despite this being the position, the CBI never investigated into the complaints made by the Petitioner.

7. Heard and pursue the record. On a specific query to the Petitioner, it is submitted that the consent terms which were filed before the Bombay High Court and recorded as above, are not disputed by the Petitioner. However, an allegation is sought to be made that the said consent terms have been obtained by fraud and coercion.

8. Considering the fact that the Petitioner had already availed of his remedies against the various authorities in respect of this very issue, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the said consent terms and to prefer the present writ petition in August, 2021, almost two years after the consent terms were entered into and were taken on record by the Bombay High Court.