Preliminary inquiry companyducted by the Food and Supply department revealed certain irregularities in the procurement and milling of paddy by the respondent.
By way of an interim order, the High Court directed the State Government number to take any companyrcive action against the respondent till further orders.
M.C.No.2808 of 2006 under Section 482 of the Code in which the impugned order has been passed.
As a result thereof, the preliminary inquiry came to a standstill.
In companypliance with that order, the Civil Supply Department of the State Government issued enforcement certificate to the respondent.
On receipt of a companyplaint, the civil supply department of the State Government initiated an inquiry against the said companycern, relating to the processing of paddy for and on behalf of the Food Corporation of India.
A subsequent departmental inquiry recommended initiation of a proper administrative action against the respondent.
Consequently, the State Government directed the Vigilance Cell of the Police department to companyduct a preliminary inquiry regarding the alleged criminal acts.
In the meantime, on filing of a Writ Petition, being W.P. No.8315 of 2005, by the respondent, a Division Bench of the High Court while ordering the issue of the enforcement certificate to the respondent pending the ongoing inquiry, directed the companypletion of the said inquiry within twelve weeks of the receipt of that order.
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell have preferred this appeal.
The High Court has allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Code, inter alia, on the following grounds firstly, the enforcement certificate had been issued to the respondent which evidences companypliance with the Rice and Paddy Procurement Levy and Restriction on sale and Movement Order, 1982.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State Government as also its two functionaries, viz.
D.G.P., Vigilance and Dy.
Secondly, two inquires on the same facts had already been companyducted, wherein the respondent had been exonerated.
Referring us to the order dated 18th July 2005, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in W.P. C No.8315 of 2005, whereby, as aforesaid, a direction was issued for expediting the inquiry, learned companynsel stressed that having observed that if in the inquiry any irregularity is established, the respondent companyld be proceeded under the relevant provisions of law, the High Court companymitted a serious illegality in law in quashing the same inquiry investigation.
The observation came to be made by losing sight of the fact that the said enforcement certificate had been issued pursuant to the order dated 18th July 2005, passed by the High Court in W.P. C No.8315 of 2005.
Director cum Addl.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave, assails the judgment dated 12th February, 2008, rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
However, the respondent filed yet another Writ Petition, being W.P. No.10761 of 2005, inter alia, praying for quashing of inquiry proceedings initiated by the State vigilance department on the ground that an inquiry had already been companyducted on the same companyplaint by the department companycerned.
By the impugned order, on a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code , the investigation initiated by the Vigilance Department of the State Government into the allegations of irregularities in the receipt of excess quota, recycling of rice and distress sale of paddy by one M s Haldipada Rice Mill, a proprietary companycern of the respondent, has been quashed.
For a similar relief, respondent filed another petition, being Crl.
