1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
:: O R D E R ::
Birbal Ram Saran Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5061/2005..
Date of Order :::: 29th June 2011.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Nikhil Dungawat for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner, who appears to be working in the Public Health
Engineering Department (‘PHED’) at Sardar Shahar, has filed this
writ petition essentially stating the grievance against the conduct of
the respondent No.2, said to be working as Pump Sanchalak-II in
the same Department.
The petitioner has made narration of several facts, said to be
of criminality of conduct of the respondent No.2; and it is submitted
that various criminal cases have been registered and complaints
lodged against the respondent No.2 but he continues with his
appalling and foul activities for want of proper proceedings by the
authorities concerned. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2
has physically assaulted the petitioner and has given him threats
whereby the petitioner is apprehensive of danger to his life and
property at the hands of the respondent No.2. It is further submitted
that several of the officers have sent various communications to the
higher authorities and the petitioner himself has sent a number of
representations to the authorities concerned but no action has been
initiated against the respondent No.2 and thereby, the respondent
2
No.2 is encouraged in commission of series of offences against
PHED employees, is creating hindrances in performing their official
duties, and has created an atmosphere of terror amongst the
employees and the officials. This apart, according to the petitioner,
the respondent No.2 is also involved in several of the scams in the
department. With such allegations and submissions, the petitioner
has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondent no.1
may kindly be directed to take suitable action against the
respondent no.2.
B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent no.1
may kindly be directed to take necessary departmental and lawful
action to remove the atmosphere of terror created by the
respondent no.2 in PHED, Sadar Sahar.
C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent no.1
may kindly be directed to make a detailed enquiry into how and
under whose shelter the respondent no.2 acting and dealing with
the officials/employees in a rude and arrogant manner.
D/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
E/ Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with
costs.”
The respondents have filed a reply raising objection against
very competence of this writ petition and entitlement of the petitioner
to take up the cause against the respondent No.2 by way of this writ
petition. However, the respondents have pointed out that the
proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 have already been
initiated.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Department
and the other authorities have failed to take appropriate steps
against the respondent No.2 despite repeated complaints; and the
fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) and
Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.
3
For the facts as stated and grounds as urged by the
petitioner, there appears no reason to consider exercising writ
jurisdiction in this matter at the instance of the petitioner.
The submissions about violation of fundamental rights remain
rather misplaced. From the material placed on record, it appears
that the cases have duly been registered against the respondent
No.2 by the concerned authorities including the police and Executive
Magistrate; and it has also been pointed out that the disciplinary
proceedings have been taken by the department. When the
authorities have been acting in accordance with law, the petitioner
cannot be acceded an independent right to seek parallel
proceedings against the respondent No.2 by way of this writ petition.
Merely by making certain complaints against respondent No.2, the
petitioner cannot be considered entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction
and to seek enquiry into the matters that are already pending before
the competent Court/Authorities.
Apart from the above, issuance of any direction in this matter
would require enquiry into several of the factual aspects; and such
an enquiry cannot be made in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Of
course, this Court is not making any comments on the merits of the
case and the petitioner is free to take recourse to regular remedies
available in law but there appears no reason or justification to
exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of the petitioner in this
matter.
Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
mk
