Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040009232024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : PIL/12/2024 Empalo Mena Son of late Baloma Mena, resident of Singa Village, PO Tuting, PS Tuting, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 11 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home and Political Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 3:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Land and Revenue Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 4:The Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Govt of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhawan 1 Parliament Street New Delhi 110011 5:The Manager NHIDCL Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/7 National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Govt of India Pasighat Office Pasighat 6:The Boreder Roads Orginaztion Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Director General (under Ministry of Defence) Seema Sadak Bhawan Ring Road Naraina Delhi Cantt New Delhi 110010 7:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Upper Siang District Yingkiong Arunachal Pradesh 8:The District Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Office of the Deputy Commissioner Upper Siang District Yingkiong Arunachal Pradesh 9:The Chief Enginer Age: 0 Occupation : Border Roads Organization project Brahmank (Pasighat) Border Organization Ministry of Road Transport Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh 10:The Commanding Officer Age: 0 Occupation : BRO 105 RCC Moying PO and PS Jengging Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 11:The Superintendent of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 3/7 SIC (Vigilance) Itanagar Govt of Arunachal Pradesh 12:The Director of Land Management Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Debajit Kumar Das, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (SIC),Ojing Pada,SC (Land Management),DSGI,Dugmar Kamduk,Marto Kato BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 22.01.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has appeared through video conferencing mode. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8. Also heard Mr. O. Pada, learned standing counsel for respondent no.11. 2. By this PIL, the petitioner have projected that illegal and irregular land acquisition compensation of Rs.65,84,76,557/- was paid and therefore, the petitioner are seeking for a direction to immediately transfer the SIC Vigilance Case No. 9/2021 under section 120B/ 409/ 420/ 471/ 468 IPC read with section 13(1)(a)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to a special investigation team appointed by the Central Government and in the alternative to judicial Page No.# 4/7 commission headed by a retired justice of High Court or the Central Bureau of Investigation for a field and fair investigation. An interim prayer was to direct the Superintendent of Police, SIC Vigilance, Itanagar to furnish a status report for constant monitoring of investigation. 3. The learned Addl. Advocate General has questioned to maintainability of the present PIL on the ground that PIL No. 7/2022, filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2022. Accordingly, the Addl. Advocate General has been heard first on the issue of maintainability. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard thereafter. 4. Upon hearing the learned Addl. Advocate General, learned counsel for the respondent no.11, as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has perused the PIL petition along with enclosures thereto, affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum- Officer-in-charge, SIC (Vigilance) PS, Itanagar and charge-sheet submitted before the Court in connection with the aforementioned case, which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the said affidavit. It may be stated that by an e-mail dated 03.08.2024, the counsel for the petitioner has sent four case citations as attachment out of which the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited and placed reliance only on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunga Nima Lepcha & Ors. v. State of Sikkim & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 513 (para 18). The said case has also been considered. The Court is also called for the records of PIL 7(AP)/2022, which was disposed of by order dated 05.05.2022 and the same has been perused. 5. The prayer in PIL 7(AP)/ 2022 is as follows: “In the premises aforesaid, it is respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would be Page No.# 5/7 pleased to admit this petition and call for records and issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why: a. A writ of mandamus shall be issued directing the respondent no.1 to initiate necessary enquiry against the officers for irregularities in payment of compensation to beneficiaries. b. A writ of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent no.4 for re- verification, re-assessment, re-survey of land of the petitioners for fair and reasonable compensation. c. A writ of mandamus shall not be issued directing respondent no.4 to display the award to the land owners n a prominent place or in official website of District Administration to give an opportunity of hearing to the affected land owners. d. A writ of mandamus to publish the report of the Board constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong vide order DCY-161/2020-21 dated 28.07.2021 due to visit the affected villagers from 17.08.2021-19.08.2021. e. And may pass any other order/ orders and direction/ directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.” 6. For the reasons which is morefully disclosed in the order dated 05.05.2022, PIL 7(AP)/ 2022 was dismissed at the motion stage. The said PIL was filed by Sri Empalo Mena, who is also the petitioner in the present PIL. As the prayer no. A in PIL 7(AP)/ 2022 was for direction to respondent no.1 therein to initiate necessary enquiry against the officers for irregularities in payment of compensation to beneficiaries was rejected. The said prayer in the order dated 05.05.2022 appears to be directly and substantially is issue in the present PIL by which the petitioner is seeking transfer of the vigilance case to some other agency for a free and fair investigation. 7. From the contents of Annexure-1 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the officer-in-charge, SIC (Vigilance) Police, Itanagar, it is seen that a final Page No.# 6/7 report/ charge-sheet no.2 dated 05.06.2024 has been submitted before the concerned Court. As per statement made in paragraph 2 of the said affidavit, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the Court of Special Judge, Yupia. Therefore, in view of filing of the said charge-sheet, in the absence of any challenge to the said charge-sheet, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is no scope for transfer of the investigation of SIC Vigilance PS Case No. 9/2021 to any other agency or forum. 8. The decision in the case of Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra), is not an authority on the point that despite filing of the charge-sheet in this case, which discloses that 24 accused have been charge-sheeted, the investigation can be transferred to any other agency of forum. The said affidavit-in-opposition was filed before this Court on 01.10.2024, but the PIL has not been amended to show any infirmity in the manner the investigation was carried out. Therefore, there is no material before the Court to even presume that the investigation was not carried out in a fair manner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a alleged complaint dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-15) to the writ petition to project that inadequate preliminary bill of Rs.78,624/- was made by the Facts Finding Committee. It is not the projected case of the petitioner that the said complainant is unable to pursue his remedy for getting a proper land acquisition compensation. 10. Under the circumstances, when the basic issue which is raised in the present PIL is appears to be directly and substantially in issue in the petitioner’s previous PIL 7(AP)/2022, the present PIL is held to be barred by the principles of res judicata. Moreover, as the affidavit-in-opposition referred above also Page No.# 7/7 discloses that a charge-sheet has been submitted in respect of SIC Vigilance PS Case No. 9/2021, no case has been made out by the petitioner for entertaining this PIL, which would essentially mean early investigation, for which no prayer is made in this PIL. 11. It may also be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by this Court in I.A.(C) 211(AP)/2024, which arises in connection with the present PIL wherein it has been observed that the petitioner, who is the applicant therein, be furnished with a copy of the charge-sheet to peruse as to whether the Facts Finding Reports were already annexed with the charge-sheet. In this regard, the standing counsel for the respondent no.11 has been able to demonstrate that seven numbers of Facts Finding Reports are annexed to the charge-sheet as Annexure-18, 19 series, 20 series, 21 series, 22 series, 23 series and 24. No direction was passed by this Court to provide copy of those annexures to the petitioner. 12. Therefore, in light of discussions above, this Court does not find any merit in the PIL and accordingly, this PIL is dismissed without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant