1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.123 of 2000 Date of decision 22.9.2008 High Court Legal Aid Committee …Petitioner Vs. N.J.P.C & others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the respondent No.2: Mr. R. Maniktala, Advocate. For the respondent No.3: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondent No.4: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the respondent No.5: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Govt. Standing Counsel . For the respondent No.6: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This writ petition by way of public interest litigation was filed by one Shri Kewal Singh Pathania. Later on he wanted to withdraw the writ petition. He was not allowed to withdraw the petition though he was permitted to walk out of the court and the petition was directed to be pursued by the High Court Legal Aid Committee, 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 vide order dated 8.11.2000. Vide same order, Shri Shrawan Dogra, Advocate was appointed as Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of Legal Aid Committee of the High Court. 2. The crux of the allegations made in the writ petition is that one Sh. O.N. Singh was the Director, Finance of Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation, respondent No.1 herein in the year 1997. Respondent No.1 had awarded a contract to Continental Foundation Joint Venture, respondent No.2 herein for execution of some works of Nathpa Jhakri Power Project. Contract was executed in writing. It appears that there was a provision in the contract for compensating respondent No.2 for power generated by use of diesel generating sets. Respondent No.2 raised claims worth Rs. 3,79,20,979/- on that count. Engineer Incharge and Additional General Manager of respondent No.1 recommended the payment of the aforesaid amount to respondent No.2. However, a decision was taken on 9th December, 1997 to constitute a committee to examine and scrutinize the aforesaid claims and the Chairman was authorized to constitute the said committee. A note was prepared and sent to respondent No.2 Sh. O.N. Singh, Director (Finance) respondent No.3 herein not to release the payment till the committee to be constituted by the Chairman scrutinized the claims and passed appropriate orders. Committee was constituted by the Chairman on the next following day i.e. on 10th December, 1997 and it was scheduled to meet on 31st December, 1997. However, on 20th December, 1997 Sh. O.N. Singh, Director (Finance) (respondent No.3) released a sum of Rs. 2.80 crores in favour of respondent No.2. It is alleged in the writ petition that Sh. O.N. Singh acted dishonestly while releasing the aforesaid amount in favour of respondent No.2 and his intention is apparent from the aforesaid facts, especially the fact that the Chairman of the Corporation had constituted a committee for 3 examining the claims of respondent No.2 and a direction had been issued on 9th December, 1997 that pending decision by the committee, payment was not to be released. 3. Plea taken by respondent No.3 is that respondent No.2 had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2.80 crores towards payment of premium of insurance but it did not have any money in its account for honoring of the cheque and so it approached him for release of a sum of Rs. 2.80 crores in its favour so that the cheque was honoured and that since the insurance pertained to the machinery of the project, he released the money to safeguard the interest of respondent No.1, which was a joint owner of the machinery. He claims that he had taken telephonic approval from the Chairman of the Corporation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apparently, we are not convinced by the response of respondent No.3 that he had taken telephonic approval from the Chairman of the Corporation because once there was written direction not to release any payment, he could not have acted only on telephonic approval/instructions and even if the matter was very urgent and written permission could not have been obtained, immediately, respondent No.3 ought to have obtained written confirmation from the Chairman of the Corporation, subsequently. In any case the plea requires to be enquired into. Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, we direct respondent No.1 to get it enquired from the Head of its Vigilance Cell whether respondent No.3 Sh. O. N. Singh, its Director (Finance) acted with some ulterior motive or dishonest intention, in ordering the release and then actually releasing an amount of Rs. 2.80 crores in favour of respondent No.2 and in case on inquiry it is found that he acted with some ulterior motive or in a dishonest manner, suitable action, including registration of criminal case be taken against him 4 (respondent) No.3. The head of the Vigilance Cell while enquiring into the matter shall not be influenced by any observation made by us hereinabove. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application (s), if any. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 22nd Sept, 2008 (sl)