People''s Right to Information and Development Implementing Society of Mizoram vs State of Mizoram and Others

Heard the petitioner and the respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that two hydel projects in the state of Mizoram were proposed to be commissioned and in the construction of the said projects heavy amounts have been spent. The projects were not even commissioned and there are allegations made that crores of rupees have been misappropriated by the engineers and officials who carried out the project works.

This public interest litigation was taken up by this Court sitting at Aizawl. This Court dismissed the PIL for default on 5.10.2010. It is also observed that the allegations regarding non-commission of the projects made in para 6 and 7 of the petition are false as the state had produced material to show that the projects have been commissioned and there has been electricity generation. This petitioner later made an application for restoration of the petition dismissed for default. This Court allowed the request and restored the petition. The respondent had filed objections by way of affidavits denying the allegations made in the petition, both in respect of the allegation of non-commissioning and the misappropriation.

The petitioner relies on the enquiry report of the Superintendent of Police(SP) of the anti-corruption bureau(ACB) dated 11th August, 2009. It is said that the first report was prepared by the SP, ACB based on the enquiries conducted by the Inspector, ACB stating that the allegations of misappropriation of funds in the project work is prima facie established and has named nine officials working in the project as responsible for the misappropriation.

It appears that the government referred the matter to the vigilance department for clarification on certain aspects and pursuant thereto the SP, ACB again got the matter enquired by the Inspector(Vigilance) and submitted a report to the government that the allegations of corruption and misappropriation are prima facie established with reference to the logbooks and other books of accounts and the absence of buildings and other permanent infrastructures and included six more officials as responsible for the misappropriation.

The government again referred the matter to the SP, ACB for clarification on certain matters and ultimately the matter was re-enquired and the SP, ACB submitted a preliminary report naming seventeen officials as responsible for the misappropriation. The petitioner has also produced a letter(13.5.2010) written by the Under Secretary to the government of Mizoram to the SP, ACB informing the latter that a criminal case is to be registered under the Indian Penal Code, and the Prevention of Corruption Act against the officials mentioned in the preliminary report. However by letter dated 2nd July, 2010 the Under Secretary informs the Director, ACB that the permission given for registration of a case by letter dated 13th May, 2010 has been withdrawn with immediate effect.

The petitioner aggrieved by such correspondence and withdrawal of the permission for registration of a case has filed this petition. It is stated that the act on the part of the government is arbitrary and the government is trying to shield the corrupt officials for reasons best known to it.

The learned Advocate-General for the Mizoram, per contra, has strenuously submitted that the government of Mizoram got the matter enquired into by the Auditor and Comptroller-General of India and whose report discloses that there is no misappropriation, besides departmental enquiries were also held which disclose that there is no misappropriation. The Public Accounts Committee has enquired the matter and found the allegations of corruption baseless. The said facts have been stated in the affidavit filed by the state in counter to the petitioner''s allegations. The petitioner has not filed any counter affidavit denying the allegations in the affidavit filed by the state. Therefore when there has been a thorough enquiry by different authorities which discloses that the allegations of corruption made against the officials by the petitioner is baseless, the petition lacks merit and the same is to be dismissed.

The petitioner in para 7 and 8 of the petition has made false averments that the projects have not been commissioned, therefore in view of the false averments the petition was dismissed on earlier occasion and now that the petition contains false averments no credence is to be given to the allegations of misappropriation.

Upon a thorough consideration of the material produced on record we find that thrice the anti-corruption bureau went into the allegations and found that there is prima facie case of misappropriation by seventeen officials mentioned by way of preliminary enquiry report. It may be that the government has constituted a departmental enquiry and in that it is found that the allegations of misappropriation is not disclosed. It may be that the Public Accounts Committee might have gone into the issue but might not have found the allegations of misappropriation, substantially. The Comptroller and Auditor-General might have gone into the issue with regard to the estimates. Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor-General would not have gone to the field to verify the project conditions to assess whether the stated projects have been done or not. In view of the contrary reports the case on hand requires a thorough investigation.

We find that the order according permission to register a case by the Under Secretary appears to be an enigmatic. The said letter does not disclose under whose direction the Under Secretary writes the letter. The legal formalities requires that under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the investigation is to be carried out by the designated officers and who shall do a comprehensive and proper investigation with reference to the documents and recording of statement of witnesses regarding each item of the misappropriation or the work concerned and after such completion of the investigation a final report is to be prepared as required under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he should submit his report to the disciplinary authority. If some of the officers involved are gazetted in rank then the sanction of the Governor would be necessary; for non-gazetted officers then the appointing/disciplinary authority should accord the sanction for prosecution and after such sanction from the competent authority the formal charge-sheet or the final report is to be laid before the designated Court for prosecution. In this case no such requisite investigation has been carried out. Therefore it is directed that the designated authority of the anti-corruption bureau shall undertake the investigation in accordance with law and after completion of such investigation shall submit the final report to the sanctioning authority for grant of sanction and after obtaining the needed sanction the final report can be placed before the Court for prosecution. The investigation is to be completed within six months from the date of this order.

Accordingly the petition is allowed in the terms indicated above.