IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8543 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Phuldeo Prasad. R/o village- Maldah, PS- Barbigha, Distt. Sheikhpura at present suspended Excise Superintendent , H.Q at office of the Deputy Commissioner, Excise Patna Division, Patna-------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Secretary, Deptt. Of Registration, Excise & Prohibition, Bihar New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary Deptt. Of Registration Excise & Prohibition Bihar , New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4. Commissioner, Excise & Prohibition Deptt. New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna---------Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 24.8.2011 This is second visit of the petitioner before this Court. In the first writ application he did not want the departmental proceeding to proceed during the pendency of the criminal trial which was necessitated from the arrest of the petitioner in a trap case. The Court vide order dated 10.12.2010 contained in annexure-4 rejected such a prayer but permitted the petitioner to file representation with regard to supply of documents. A demand for supply of documents was filed by the petitioner in terms of annexure-3. There are 38 items claimed therein. This request of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 17.2.2011 contained in annexure-1. This has formed the basis for filing the second writ application now on the ground that refusal to provide documents demanded by the petitioner prejudices his case if not his defence. If the petitioner is not given appropriate opportunity to defend himself and if the respondents do not cooperate in preparing the defence on the basis of documents so demanded then serious prejudice will be caused to him. The stand of the State is otherwise which is supported by 2 learned counsel representing the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar. It is their categorical contention that all those documents and evidence which have come to be relied upon in the chargesheet contained in annexure-2 (Prapatra Ka) has already been supplied to petitioner. The respondents are not bound to supply all or everything under the sky to help the petitioner to build up his defence and the strategy in the manner which he likes. The Court has been taken through annexure-3 and list of demands filed. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Court refrains from expressing its opinion on the bond fide of the said demand but it emerges that only to delay the conclusion of the departmental proceeding the petitioner has knowingly filed a long list of documents which is totally irrelevant to the charge. Irrationality of the demand cannot form the basis for supply of all documents which the petitioner wants in the name of being given fullest opportunity of hearing. The law is rather well settled on the issue that the documents or evidence which come to be relied on by the prosecution or the presenting officer in departmental enquiry shall alone form the basis for making such demand or evidence incidental thereto which is not remote. This writ application lacks bona fide. The reasonings given in annexure-1 are cogent and valid reasons and does not smack of any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Petitioner has been supplied the documents indicated in rejection i.e. annexure-1. This writ application is dismissed. RPS ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)