Venkatraman Jayshankar @ V. Jayshankar v. The State of Bihar

Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate Ms. Kalpana, Advocate Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Government Advocate-III ----------

6.5.2009. Petitioner has invoked the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by virtue of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and some other accused for the alleged offences under Sections 29, 52, 26(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 33(1)(c) and 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as well as under Section 217, 218 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is a senior I.A.S. officer and was holding the post of Secretary, Water Resources as well as additional charge of Forest and Environment and still occupies a senior position in the Government of Bihar. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition was that a complaint was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on behalf of the Directorate of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar alleging therein that the former Minister of Irrigation and - 2 - Environment & Forest, Government of Bihar; the present petitioner, Secretary, Water Resources-cum-Forest and Environment; Shri Hemchand Sirohi, then Secretary Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar and Shri G.S.Kang, former Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar have by their conduct committed the offences mentioned in the earlier part of the order by allowing construction on the protected forest and wildlife sanctuary in what is known as „Durgawati Reservoir Project‟ falling within the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary. Based on the complaint, Complaint Case No.541(2) of 2006 was registered and vide order dated 31.10.2006 cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and summons were issued for appearance of all the accused including the petitioner on 19.12.2006. Aggrieved by the said order the present application has come to be filed. The court need not go into all the details or the background under which the said case came to be filed against the senior functionaries of the State because after the lodging of the case and during the pendency of this application certain development have taken place which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated therein that the matter was taken-up with Government of India by the State of Bihar specially before the Central Empowered Committee to grant exemption as well as set conditions which the Government was willing to accept for completion of the Durgawati Reservoir Project which was planned and implemented by the State of Bihar beginning 1975 and more than 500 crores of public money - 3 - had already been spent in implementation of the said project. Taking a strict view of the matter under the provisions of law will not serve any public purpose and the matter was required to be looked into from all these dimensions. The Central Empowered Committee submitted its report dated 11.6.2008 accepting the contention and the stand of the State of Bihar and it allowed work to be carried out but on certain terms and conditions which are reflected in the recommendations contained in Annexure-A to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. The recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee was placed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India along with large number of other cases relating to environment and forest and the same stand disposed off vide an order dated 20.10.2008. The order in question has been brought on record as Annexure-7 by way of a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order relates to I.A. No. 2071, 2142 as well as I.A. No. 2387, which is at internal page 8 of the supplementary affidavit. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court concludes that, “subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, the project is cleared”. It also recorded, “NBWL (National Board of Wild Life) had earlier recommended that action be taken against some officers. But having regard to larger interest, no further action is required and we make it clear that no proceeding may be taken against the said officers.” Based on the order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned I.As. an order dated 20th November, 2008 came to be issued by Sri B.K.Singh, Senior Assistant Inspector General of Forests, - 4 - Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, which is Anenxure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The letter was addressed to the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and pertains to the construction of Durgawati Reservoir Project in the State of Bihar, the subject matter of controversy which led to filing of the present complaint against the petitioner and other officials. The letter states as under: “Sir, I am directed to convey that in I.A. No. 2071 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Hon‟ble Court has issued following order on 20.10.2008. “NBWL (National Board of Wild Life) had earlier recommended that action be taken against some officers. But having regard to larger interest, no further action is required and we make it clear that no proceeding may be taken against the said officers.” I am, therefore, directed to inform the State Government that in view of the above order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, no penal action/proceedings are required to be taken up/initiated against any official of the State Government.” Armed with these developments learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that there is no occasion now to prosecute the petitioner in the complaint case since the highest Court of the land has ultimately held in favour of the State Government and had also recorded its opinion not to take any further action against the officials. Based on the above order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court the Government of India has also directed the State Government, as already - 5 - noted above, not to take any penal action or proceeding against the officials of the State Government. Learned counsel representing the opposite parties does not deny the submissions which have been made and the documents which have been brought on record and to that extent there is no dispute on the basic facts. In the above mentioned circumstance whatever be the basis or the background under which prosecution had been initiated against the petitioner, the current situation is that all has been allowed to rest by the Hon‟ble Apex Court followed by a corresponding direction issued by the Government of India and in that view of the matter, continuance of the prosecution of the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner has made out a case for interference. The application is allowed. The criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 31.10.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 541(2) of 2006 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna stands quashed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)