4 had acquired assets worth Rs.
Alongwith the said companynter affidavit respondent No.
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.
Respondent No.
3, the State of Sikkim, but the said affidavit is companyfined to the question whether a meeting of the Cabinet was held on May 19, 1984 wherin, as asserted in the writ petition by the petitioner, it was decided that since respondent No.
Sections 5 6 of the Act read as under Section 5 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 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 Notification dated January 7, 1987.
The allegations, in brief, were that respondent No.
D.S.P.E. companystituted under the said Act is number known as the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI .
4 was the Chief Minister of Sikkim during the period 1979 to 1984.
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 Notification dated January 7, 1987, withdrawing the companysent is in violation of the provisions of the Act.
The allegations, in brief, were that Respondent No.
4 again became the Chief Minister of Sikkim in March, 1985.
By Notification dated January 7, 1987, when the respondent No.
He ceased to be the Chief Minister on May 11, 1984.
In the said affidavit numberreference has been made to the order dated January 7, 1987, whereby the companysent granted under Section 6 of the Act was withdrawn as well as the legality of the said action.
4 and Shri P.K. Pradhan, the then Secretary Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim, and fifteen others for having caused pecuniary advantage to the private parties to the tune of Rs.
Respondent No.
8/84 CIU A the C.B.I, had companye to the companyclusion that a. prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 120 B I.P.C. and Section 5 2 read with Section 5 i d of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out against respondent No.
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.
On May 26, 1984, a case RC.5/84 CIU A was registered by the C.B.I. for offences punishable under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3,07,230.
It is also stated in the said affidavit that Notification dated January 7,1987, through which the companysent was withdrawn, is prejudicial to the fair and free investigation by C.B.I, and thus illegal and number tenable under the law and further that there is numberprovision in law for withdrawal of companysent once accorded and that, in any case, in respect of cases already taken up for investigation or trial on the basis of a valid companysent legally accorded by the State Government, there is numberscope of withdrawing it in between and that Notification dated January 7, 1987, deserves to be quashed in totality and certainly in respect of the cases already taken up for investigation by C.B.I. A companynter affidavit has been filed by Shri K.A. Varadan, Chief Secretary, State of Sikkim, on behalf of respondent No.
On August 7, 1984, another case RC.
2, Union of India, it has been stated that after due investigation in case No.
In his companynter affidavit respondent No.
RC.5/84 CIU A the C.B.I. had companye to the companyclusion that respondent No.
P.C. in either of the aforesaid two cases in the companyrt of law, the State of Sikkim, by its Notification dated January 7, 1987, withdrew the companysent earlier accorded by it to the members of the Special Police Establishment for investigation of offences in the State of Sikkim as provided under Section 6 of the Act and that inspite of various companymunications sent by Government of India to the Government of Sikkim requesting for restoration of the companysent under Section 6 of the Act, the State Government had declined to give companysent as requested.
1,62,31,630 to the private parties for implementing Rural Water Supply Scheme under the minimum need programme during 1983 84 on higher rates and had ignored the recommendations of the companycerned Rural Development Department officials on this point.
It has been further stated in the said affidavit that the withdrawal of the companysent by the State Government through Notification dated January 7, 1987, has caused grave injustice to the investigation of the aforesaid two cases registered by C.B.I, because for want of said companysent the reports under Section 173 Cr.
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.
4 was the Chief Minister of Sikkim, it was numberified that all companysents of or on behalf of the State Government under letters dated October 20, 1976 and July 10, 1979 and orders dated December 24, 1988, June 28, 1984 and December 10, 1984 for investigation of offences by C.B.I, under Section 6 of the Act, are withdrawn and stand cancelled with immediate effect.
After registering these two cases C.B.I, started investigation and while the matters were under investigation respondent No.
Inspite of requests made by officials of the Government of India, in their letters dated October 17, 1988, December 12, 1988 and February 10, 1989 and the Ministers of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions in letters dated March 9, 1989 and September 16, 1992, the Government of Sikkim did number agree to permit investigation by C.B.I, in respect of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and declined to give companysent for such investigation.
8/84 CIU A was registered by C.B.I, for offence punishable under Section 120 B I.P.C. and Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against respondent 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 No.
Similar companysent in respect of offences under other enactments was companyveyed by letter of the Chief Secretary, Government of Sikkim, dated July 10, 1979 and the orders of the Government of Sikkim dated December 24, 1983, June 28, 1984 and December 10, 1984.
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.
P.C. as required under law, numberwithstanding the withdrawal of companysent during pendency of investigation.
4 and others.
4 has disputed that a meeting of the Cabinet was held on May 19, 1984, or a decision was taken empowering C.B.I, to investigate the allegations of companyruption against respondent No.
P.C. companyld number be filed in the companyrt of law.
4 has also filed a companynter affidavit wherein he has alleged that the writ petition was Politically motivated and further that the registration of cases by C.B.I, against him was vitiated by mala fides and is part of a campaign of character assassination against him.
As a companysequence of the Notification dated January 7, 1987, C.B.I, suspended further action in the aforementioned two cases registered against respondent No.
4 had acquired assets by illegal means the Central Government be requested to require C.B.I, to institute companyplaints file case against respondent No.
By his letter dated October 20, 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 D.S.P.E. 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.
4 and that the sanction to investigate offences by C.B.I, under Section 6 of the Act was illegally granted which had been properly withdrawn.
2, The Act was enacted to make provision for the Constitution 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.
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 D.S.P.E. 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.
