ORDER
The Court
1. One reply affidavit on behalf of the CBI to IA No. 1913 of 2001 has been filed. This application, may, however, be taken up for consideration on the next date.
2. One affidavit has been filed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Director in the Lok Sabha Secretariat. This affidavit is in compliance to our order dated 7.12.2001. In Para 4 of this Affidavit it is stated that the CBI had sought the permission of the Lok Sabha Speaker with respect to the grant of sanction against Rajo Singh in four cases mentioned in that para and that the opinion of the Attorney General has been received in one case and in other three cases the same is awaited. Even in the case in which the opinion of the attorney General has been received the matter, as per the aforesaid affidavit, is under consideration of the Lok Sabha Speaker.
3. In our order dated 7.12.2001 with respect to the aforesaid request of the sanction relating to Rajo Singh, we had made the following observations–
Mr. P.K. Prasad submits that four cases are awaiting sanction from the Lok Sabha Speaker and that with respect to one such case, opinion of the Attorney General has been received by the Lok Sabha Secretariat and the same is pending consideration of the Lok Sabha Speaker. According to Mr. Prasad’s information, in three other cases, the opinion of the attorney General is awaited. We direct Mr. Prasad to convey to the Secretary General. Lok Sabha the Attorney General the concern of this Court about the expeditious disposal of these four cases with regard to the grant of sanction. Mr. Prasad shall file an affidavit of an official of the Lok Sabha Secretariat, preferably the Secretary General, on the
next date informing this Court about the position as prevailing on the next date with regard to the grant of sanction.”
Unfortunately the situation remains totally unchanged, unfortunately also the aforesaid affidavit of the Director. Lok Sabha Secretariat, does not disclose to this Court whether the concern of this Court was or was not conveyed to the Attorney General and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, As far back as on 15.6.2001 and 3.8.2001. this Court had also considered the question with respect to the pendency of the CBI’s request relating to the aforesaid Rajo Singh, but till date the matter does not appear to have been finalised. Said Rajo Singh has been cited as co-accused in four cases. We have been informed that in all these four cases sanctions with respect to the other co- accused have been granted by the’ competent authority. Which means, therefore, that only for want of sanction with respect to accused Rajo Singh, the CBI cannot complete the process of filing charge-sheets in the said four cases in the competent Courts. If, therefore, the request for sanction is processed very earlier and final orders passed without any delay, the process of filing the charge-sheets. In the Courts with respect to all these four cases can be completed without any loss of time; any further loss of time will unnecessarily delay the process of completion and the consequent filing of the charge-sheets.
4. We, accordingly, direct the Secretary General. Lok Sabha to bring to the notice of the Attorney General and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha the concern of this Court and place before them copies of this order for their consideration, We direct the Secretary General, Lok Sabha, personally to file his affidavit on the next date informing this Court with respect to the action taken and the result thereof.
5. An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, informing us about the competent authorities in the Government of Jharkhand granting sanctions with respect to all the accused persons wherever this request was pending, It means, therefore, that so far as the Government of Jharkhand is concerned, there is no outstanding case where the sanction consequent upon our order dated 7.12.2001 is pending. If any further investigation has given rise to the need for obtaining sanction with respect to any other accused or accused persons. Mr. P.P.N. Roy shall convey the same to the learned Advocate General, who shall forward this information to the Government of Jharkhand for accord of sanction.
6. Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel appearing for the Government of Bihar, even though has tiled an affidavit of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar has also made statement before us on behalf of the Govt. of Bihar that if the CBI furnishes to the Govt of Bihar the case diaries or copies thereof relevant for processing the sanction request within three weeks from the date of receipt of the case diaries of the copies thereof, sanction will be accorded.
7. We accordingly direct Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the CBI to ensure that this requirement of the State of Bihar is met within one week from today if not already done. In other words, the CBI shall either show or handover the copies of such relevant extracts of the case diaries as would pertain to such accused persons with respect to whom sanction might be required from the Government of Bihar. To expedite this process it shall be appreciated if Mr. Roy directly corresponds with Mr. A. Allam.
8. Mr, P.P.N. Roy has told us that in compliance with our order dated 7.12.2001 relating to Shri D.P. Ojha, the then Additional Director, CBI, has submitted the file to the present Director. CBI, for his examination, consideration and decision on the subject. We had in that order directed the Director. CBI, to convey his decision to us after examination and consideration, but till date it has not been done. This part of the order shall now be implemented and complied with before the next date.
9. Let the matter appear on 5.4.2002.
10. Let copies of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the parties.