CW- 411/09 -Jeevan Ram Singharia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.25.2.09 1/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.411/2009 Jeevan Ram Singharia Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment : 25th February, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Rajesh Panwar for the petitioner. Mr. I.S. Pareekh, Addl. Government Counsel. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the District Collector, Nagaur sanctioning prosecution against the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 197 and 161 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the representations made by the petitioner the District Collector had only deputed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nava, Nagaur to hold a preliminary enquiry in the mater on which the said SDO, Nawa had made a report on 29.7.2008, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure 3 which was submitted to the District Collector, Nagaur the disciplinary authority which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was favourable to the petitioner and the same was not considered by the District Collector while passing the impugned sanction order on 1.1.2009 Annex.4. CW- 411/09 -Jeevan Ram Singharia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.25.2.09 2/4 4. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the said order Annerx.14. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner only pressed for the relief to the extent of remand back to the District Collector (Land Conversion), Nagaur setting aside the impugned order dated 1.1.2009 and for reconsidering of the entire matter including the report of the S.D.O., Nawa, Nagaur dated 29.7.2008 Annex.3. 5. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by Mr. I.S. Pareekh, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 who submitted that order Annex.4 was passed by the competent disciplinary authority namely District Collector after considering the entire material on record including the said report of the learned S.D.O. Annex.3. He further submitted that the petitioner himself was personally heard by the learned District Collector before passing the impugned order in the presence of one Jeevan Ram, Land Conversion Inspector and Heera Singh Chauhan, Police Inspector on 1.10.2008. The said hearing took place much after the report Annex.3 dated 29.7.2008 which the petitioner can be expected to have brought to the notice of the learned Collector if at all something could be drawn in CW- 411/09 -Jeevan Ram Singharia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.25.2.09 3/4 his favour upon that. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in fact there is nothing in favour of the petitioner or against the respondents in the said report dated 29.7.2008 which merely says that on account of friendly relationship between Shri Shivdan Meena and complainant Shri Mahendra Pareekh, said Shivdan Meena was found with the revenue record. He submits that not only the learned District Collector has considered this material besides entire other material including the fact like the petitioner was caught red handed in the trap led on 22.7.2007 and he was caught red handed with the bribe money which was of course denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, the report of the learned S.D.O. is of no avail to the petitioner at this stage and the petitioner should be subjected to the trial under the relevant provisions of law. 7. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that the respondent No.2 District Collector, (Land Records), Nagaur has passed a detailed sanction order on 1.1.2009 after considering the entire relevant material. Though Annex.3 report of the learned S.D.O. dated 29.7.2008 is not specifically mentioned in the said order, there is no reason to believe that the said disciplinary authority may not have taken into account the said report of the learned S.D.O. As a matter CW- 411/09 -Jeevan Ram Singharia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.25.2.09 4/4 of fact, the operative part of the impugned order clearly specifies that the said authority has taken into account all the relevant statements, record, charges and circumstances of the case against the petitioner while sanctioning the prosecution in question. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for remand of the case to the District Collector, Nagaur in these circumstances where a specific mention to the said report of the S.D.O. may not have made in the otherwise detailed and well reasoned order passed by the District Collector, does not appear to be justified to this Court. 8. Consequently, no interference is required in the impugned order and the writ petition is found devoid of merit. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.s/2 babulal/-