W.P.No.13863 / 2012 (S.C.Rahatgaonkar, ..Vs..Lokayukta, M.P.& otheRs.21-09-2012 Shri D.N.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.1, dated 23-8-2003, the order passed by the respondent No.4, dated 17-3-2009 and the subsequent directions issued by the respondent No.4, dated 26-3-2009 (Annexure P-4) .
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to bifurcation of State of Madhya Pradesh into two States i.e.State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh, respectively, the petitioner was posted in the Forest Department at Amarkantak and at that point of time certain members of the subordinate staff filed a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent No.1, Lokayukta, Madhya Pradesh, pursuant to which notices were issued to the petitioner, however, subsequently on formation of the State of Chhattisgarh the case was transferred to respondent No.4, Chhattisgarh Lokayukta by order dated 28-3-2000.
It is submitted that the Chhattisgarh Lokayukta issued a notice to the petitioner and thereafter passed an order on 17-3-2009 recording a finding that the petitioner had committed certain illegalities and irregularities and, therefore, Police Station, Amarkantak, should register an F.I.R.against him under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The respondent No.4 issued another direction on 26-3-2009 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, to take up proceedings against the petitioner.
The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present petition alleging that the respondent No.1 had no powers under Section 83 of the M.P.Reorganization Act, 2000 to transfer the case to the respondent No.4, more so, as the incident, in respect of which an enquiry is sought to be made, occurred in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
It is submitted that as the aforesaid direction of respondent No.1 transferring the case itself was without any authority of law, therefore order passed by the respondent No.4 and the directions issued by him are contrary to law and deserve to be quashed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the case against the petitioner was transferred by the respondent No.1 on 23-8-2003 whereas the petition has been filed after nine yeaRs.That apart, it is also apparent that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was well aware of this fact, he did not assail the said order before any authority and in fact, appeared before the respondent No.4 on notices being issued and filed his reply.
It is also clear that the respondent No.4 passed orders for an enquiry on 17-3-2009 with consequent directions issued on 26-3-2009 to the State of Chhattisgarh but the petitioner did not assail the same immediately and has not filed the present petition in 2012.
Quite apart from the above, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.4, the appropriate forum for assailing the same is before the High Court of Chhattisgarh as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to quash the orders passed by the respondent No.4.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition, as far as it relates to challenge to the impugned order dated 23-8-2003 is concerned is dismissed as it suffers from delay and laches having been filed after a long lapse of nearly nine years and as no cogent reason or explanation for the same has been placed before this Court.
It is, however, observed that in case the petitioner is aggrieved against the orders passed by the respondent No.4, he is granted liberty to approach the competent Court for redressal of his grievance in Chhattisgarh.
With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.
C.C.as per rules.
(R.S.Jha) Judge mct