Krishna Kumar Tamrakar vs Department Of State Exise And Others

The petitioner has filed the present petition in the Public Interest Litigation challenging the inaction of respondent nos. 1 to 5 in not taking any action respondent no. 6.

2 In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 6 and other government officials misused their official position and engaged in corrupt practices. However, the State Government is not taking any iegal action against such government officials. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted number of complaints and representations alleging that respondent no. 6 has been engaged in corrupt practices and misused his official capacity. Respondent no. 6 is working as Dy. Excise Commissioner and also involved in number of criminal cases, despite that, no departmental enquiry has been initiated by respondent nos. 3. Being aggrieved that, present writ petition has been filed.

3 Learned Govt Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent / State on advance copy, submits that similar writ petitions have been filed by other petitioners against the same respondent claiming same relief i.e. for initiating departmental enquiry against respondent no. 6 and the same has been dismissed i.e. W.P. no. 2617/2007 ( Ajay Arora Vs. State of M.P and others ) decided on 08/04/2008. Similarly W.P no. 20284/2013 ( Anay Arora Vs State of M.P and others decided on 21/11/2013

4 In the case of Suraj Jailswal Vs. State of M.P and others, ( W.P. no. 20614/2013 decided on 14/08/2014), the petitioner therein has filed petition challenging the appointment of respondent no. 4 ( respondent no. 6 in present case) and the same was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat vide order dated 14/08/2014 on the ground that the Principal Secretary had no authority to overturn the opinion of subordinate official noted by them in the proposal and the Principal Secretary being higher authority, therefore, is competent to overturn the noting made by government officials.

5 Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, in which appointment of respondent no. 4 ( respondent no. 6 herein), inaction of respondent nos. 1 to 5 in not taking any action against respondent no. 6 has already been dismissed by this Court in number of other writ petition, therefore, no interference is called for in the present case, Accordingly, present petition also stands dismissed.

C c as per rules