1 281411 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2814 OF 2011 Prakash Kevalram Pahuja ...Petitioner V/s. Central Vigilance Commission & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner Mrs. Anamika Malhotra for the Respondents CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 6TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.:- The grievance made in this petition is about the inaction of the Central Vigilance Commission in considering the complaint filed by the petitioner against officials of Fisheries Survey of India, Mumbai, dated 6th January, 2009. 2. In response to the said complaint, the Section Officer of respondent No. 1 had informed the petitioner that the complaint is being processed; and the factual report from the officer of Department of 2 281411 Animal Husbandry, Dairy & Fisheries, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, was called for. Even after lapse of almost one year and eight months, the petitioner, vide communication dated 13th October, 2010, has been informed by the Director & CPIO of the Central Vigilance Commission that the Commission was yet to receive the final factual report from the CVO. 3. We fail to understand as to why the enquiry into the complaint regarding the malpractices in the Office of the Fisheries Survey of India, Mumbai, should take such unreasonably long time. If the concerned officer has not submitted the factual report, it was for respondent No. 1 to impress upon the said officer to investigate and report, so that appropriate decision on the complaint made by the petitioner could be taken within a reasonable period. By no stretch of imagination, time spent of over two years in taking appropriate corrective and remedial measures by respondent No. 1 on the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 6th January, 2009 is acceptable. It is possible that, if we were to issue notice, respondent No. 1 would come out with some explanation, in the context of the complaint made by the petitioner which is dated 6th January, 2009. 3 281411 4. However, instead of issuing notice, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition, with a hope that respondent No. 1 shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the complaint made by the petitioner dated 6th January, 2009 is taken to its logical end, one way or the other, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date the order is brought to the notice of respondent No.1 by the petitioner or the Registry of this Court, whichever is earlier. 5. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the stand taken by the petitioner that the respondents have been duly served, and the acknowledgment of service is also produced in the Registry. 6. For the reasons recorded, we dispose of this petition, while making it clear that respondent No. 1 is free to decide the complaint on its own merits, in accordance with law, and this order is not an expression of opinion either way with regard to the allegations contained therein. 7. Respondent No.1 shall submit compliance report to this Court on or before 5th September, 2011. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.