Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1838 (UTT)

DEEPESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPPIL/19/2025 · 2025-02-27

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1358-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPPIL No. 19 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. 1. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla & Mr. Mukesh Rawat, Advocates for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner has sought the following reliefs in this writ petition, allegedly filed in public interest:- (i) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the state government to initiate an independent investigation into the allegations of corruption and misconduct against respondent Nos. 10 to 14, ensuring that the investigation is conducted by an impartial authority free from any influence of the erring officials (As contained in Annexure Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 17 to this writ petition). (ii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to conduct a time-bound, independent investigation into the various complaints against respondent No. 10 to 14, including his involvement in financial irregularities and abuse of power (Specially by Respondent no. 10 & 11). (iii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities for immediate transfer of respondent Nos. 10 to 14 from their current positions to prevent any potential tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses during the course of the investigation. (iv) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing for mandating the implementation of necessary measures to ensure accountability and transparency within the Food and Civil Supplies Department of Uttarakhand, including the 2025:UHC:1358-DB restoration of the rights of the affected beneficiaries. (v) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing and respondent authorities to establish a mechanism for the timely and transparent investigation of complaints against public officials, ensuring accountability at all levels. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per reports submitted by Special Investigation Team and also Vigilance Department, certain officials, serving in Food and Civil Supplies Department, are responsible for causing huge financial loss to the public exchequer. He submits that various irregularities are committed by them in distribution of foodgrain and other essential commodities through Public Distribution System. 5. The grievance raised by petitioner is that despite categorical finding in the reports submitted by these Agencies, no action has been taken against the persons found responsible for loss to the public exchequer. 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submitted that this PIL appears to be a motivated one, as there are certain Officers of Food & Civil Supplies Department, particularly, those posted in District Udham Singh Nagar, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and it appears that those Officers have sponsored this petition, with a view to divert the attention of the State Government. He further submits that disciplinary enquiry was also initiated against the person, who was posted as District Supply Officer in District Udham Singh Nagar at the relevant point of time. 2025:UHC:1358-DB 7. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department by making a representation. If petitioner makes representation within two weeks from today, the concerned Secretary shall look into the issues raised by petitioner and take an informed decision, as per law, within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that the persons, against whom any action is proposed to be taken, shall also be given a reasonable opportunity, before passing any order prejudicial to their interest. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.02.2025 Aswal 2025:UHC:1358-DB