The petitioner, who happens to be a former Chief Minister of Sikkim, has filed this writ petition, by way of public interest litigation, wherein he has sought various reliefs including the quashing of the numberification dated 7 1 1987.
The petitioner has submitted that there is numberprovision under the Act which empowers the State Government to withdraw the companysent which has been accorded and that impugned numberification dated 7 1 1987, withdrawing the companysent is in violation of the provisions of the Act.
In spite of requests made by officials of the Government of India in their letters dated 17 10 1988, 12 12 1988 and 10 2 1989 and the Ministers of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions in letters dated 9 3 1989 and 16 9 1992, the Government of Sikkim did number agree to permit investigation by CBI in respect of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and declined to give companysent for such investigation.
DSPE companystituted under the said Act is number known as the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI .
He ceased to be the Chief Minister on 11 5 1984.
Respondent 4 was the Chief Minister of Sikkim during the period 1979 to 1984.
After registering these two cases CBI started investigation and while the matters were under investigation Respondent 4 again became the Chief Minister of Sikkim in March 1985.
By his letter dated 20 10 1976, addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Sikkim companyveyed the companysent of the Government of Sikkim under Section 6 of the Act to the members of the DSPE in exercising powers and jurisdiction on the whole of the State of Sikkim for the investigation of the offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code specified therein as well as offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
On 7 8 1984, another case RC.8/84 CIU A was registered by CBI for offences punishable under Section 120 B IPC and Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against Respondent 4 and others.
Nothing companytained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, number being a Union Territory or railway area, without the companysent of the Government of that State.
Where any such order under sub section 1 is made in relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub section 2 , any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub Inspector may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer in charge of a police station in that area and when so exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station.
RC.5/84 CIU A the CBI had companye to the companyclusion that Respondent 4 had acquired assets worth Rs 16,49,434 which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and that a prima facie case for offences punishable under Sections 5 2 read with Section 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out against him and that similarly after investigation of case No.
In the companynter affidavit of Shri Parag Prakash, Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, filed on behalf of Respondent 2, Union of India, it has been stated that after due investigation in case No.
Sections 5 and 6 of the Act read as under 5.
The allegations, in brief, were that Respondent 4 and Shri P.K. Pradhan, the then Secretary Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim, by companyrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their position as public servants in companyspiracy with other persons caused pecuniary advantage to the private parties and the companyresponding loss to the Government of Sikkim and further that these persons entered into a criminal companyspiracy with other private persons and awarded companytracts to the tune of Rs 1,62,31,630 to the private parties for implementing Rural Water Supply Scheme under the Minimum Needs Programme during 1983 84 on higher rates and had ignored the recommendations of the companycerned Rural Development Department officials on this point.
Similar companysent in respect of offences under other enactments was companyveyed by letter of the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, dated 10 7 1979 and the orders of the Government of Sikkim dated 24 12 1983, 28 6 1984 and 10 12 1984.
On 26 5 1984, a case RC.5/84 CIU A was registered by the CBI for offences punishable under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
As a companysequence of the numberification dated 7 1 1987, CBI suspended further action in the aforementioned two cases registered against Respondent 4.
The allegations, in brief, were that Respondent 4, while acting as the Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim and thus being a public servant, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
When by an order under sub section 1 the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of the police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force.
By numberification dated 7 1 1987, when Respondent 4 was the Chief Minister of Sikkim, it was numberified that all companysents of or on behalf of the State Government under letters dated 20 10 1976 and 10 7 1979 and orders dated 24 12 1983, 28 6 1984 and 10 12 1984 for investigation of offences by CBI under Section 6 of the Act, are withdrawn and stand cancelled with immediate effect.
1 The Central Government may by order extend to any area including Railway areas in a State, number being a Union Territory the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a numberification under Section 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. This writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution raises the question whether it is permissible to withdraw the companysent given by the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 hereinafter referred to as the Act whereby a member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment DSPE was enabled to exercise powers and jurisdiction for the investigation of the specified offences in any area in the State and, if so, what is the effect of such withdrawal of companysent on matters pending investigation on the basis of such companysent on the date of withdrawal.
The Act was enacted to make provision for the companystitution of a special police force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the Union Territories, for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences.
