Bombay High CourtWP/1480/2020disposed offdismissed for default

Amrish Ishwarlal Jain v. Central Vigilance Commission Through Section Officer And Others

2020-01-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni2 pages

1 907-WP1480-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1480 OF 2020 Amrish Ishwarlal Jain .. Petitioner

Versus

Central Vigilance Commission Through Section Officer and others .. Respondents Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis and S. R. Vakil, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Deshpande, A. S. G. for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2020.

PER COURT:- .

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the directions be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to investigate and dispose of complaint filed by the petitioner which is pending since the year 2017. According to the learned counsel, the cognizance has been taken of the complaint filed by the petitioner. The Central Vigilance Commission has directed the Chief Vigilance Officer to scrutinize the complaint sent for necessary action, however, no further steps are taken by the authority. 2.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents which the petitioner claims to be forged ones and the

2 907-WP1480-2020.odt complaints with regard to the disbursement of the loan are also subject matter of consideration before the D. R. T. Aurangabad. The proceeding is filed before the D. R. T. Aurangabad. The present petitioner is a party in the said proceeding. All the documents claimed to be forged are subject matter of judicial proceeding before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is seized with the matter. The Tribunal can consider all these aspects on its own merits.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already filed application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code before D.R.T. The petitioner may prosecute the same and also the complaint of the petitioner before the vigilance cell. It is for the petitioner to take necessary steps in that regard. 4.

Considering the pendency of the matter before the D. R. T. Aurangabad, we are not inclined to consider the petition on merits. 5.

With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. No costs. ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE P.S.B.