PIL 82/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI TEH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY B E F O R E JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Sri S. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Sarma , learned Govt. Advocate, Mizoram and Sri H. Rahman, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 2. The writ petitioner, who claims to be the President of an N.G.O. functio ning under the name of People’s Right to Information and Development Implement ing Society of Mizoram (PRISM), has instituted the present writ petition seekin g an enquiry into the purchases made under the police modernization scheme in th e State of Mizoram commencing from the year 2001. 3. The pleaded case of the writ petitioner is that in between the year 2001 and 2005 purchases of different items for modernization of the police force in the State of Mizoram were made to the extent of Rs.19/20 crores. Though under an Office Memorandum dated 18.8.94 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) purchases of stores were required to be made by issuing tenders which were to be finally acce pted by the State Level Purchase Advisory Board neither any tender was published nor the matter was placed before the State Level Purchase Advisory Board. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the purchases were made and payme nts were tendered the Purchase Advisory Board in its meeting held on 14.11.2003 granted post facto approval of the purchases and while doing so it was observed by the Purchase Advisory Board that in making the said purchases, financial Rule s, established norms and other financial instructions were not followed. 4. The petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the report o f the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ending 2006 in the m atter of the purchases in question which report is highly adverse to the State G overnment. In this regard relying on page 83 of the said report of the Comptroll er and Auditor General of India the attention of the Court has been drawn to the finding of the said authority that some of the items purchased were without ass essing the actual need whereas some of the items procured were obsolete both ren dering the expenditure incurred wasteful and meaningless. 5. The official respondents have filed an affidavit in the case. Nowhere in the said affidavit the respondents have claimed to have issued any tender befor e proceeding to make the purchases. Regarding the approval of the State Level Pu rchase Advisory Board the absence of any consultation or approval of the said Bo ard is evident from a reading of the ultimate paragraph of the minutes of the me eting of the Board dated 14.11.2003 wherein, as already noticed, the Board had c learly recorded that the purchases made were in violation of the Financial Rules and the norms in force. In fact, the primary attempt made by the State responde nt in the affidavit filed appears to be justify the rates at which certain speci fic items were procured. 6. From the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record including the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General it is clear and evident to us that diverse items involving a huge amount of public money had been procured/pur chased in the State of Mizoram ostensibly for the modernization of the police fo rce of the State. In making the said purchases financial norms/Rules and discipl ine as well other procedural requirements were openly flouted. No tenders were i nvited and no approval in respect of the purchases were obtained from the State Level Purchase Advisory Board though evidently such a Board was in office. In th e aforesaid circumstances there will be little hesitation on the part of the Cou rt to hold that the purchases in question were made in breach of financial propr iety as well as the Rules and norms in force. We are, therefore, inclined to tak e the view that the matter of such purchases should be further looked into and/o r enquired. 7. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State to constitute a t eam of three Officers who will make further enquiries in the matter. The said te am will be headed by the Chief Secretary himself and will consist of two other m embers of his choice. The team constituted by the present order will identify al l such officers who were responsible in making the purchases and shall also go i nto the price(s) at which the items were procured/ purchased. Thereafter, all su ch officers who are found to be at fault will be proceeded against departmentall y and wherever any criminal liability is disclosed, the Chief Secretary will aut horize filing of criminal complaints before the jurisdictional Police Stations o r Court, as may be, by the appropriate authority. The above process will be comp leted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and the report of the action taken will be intimated to the writ petitioner who is left with the option of approaching the Court, once again, if the situation so r equires. 8. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.