P. Arul v. The Government of India & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13-11-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHW.P.No.40356 of 2006andMP Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2008P.Arul.. Petitionervs1.The Government of India rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Small Scale Industries New Delhi2.The Small Industries ServiceInstitute No.65/1, GST Road Guindy, Chennai 600 032.3.The Director Directorate of Technical Education Guindy, Chennai4.All India Council forTechnical Education New Delhi5.The Management of ApolloInstitute Aiswarya Complex Ist Floor, 4-Duraisamy Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17.6.The Principal Apollo Institute of Hotel ManagementCatering and Fashion Technology 5 Roads, Salem.7.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Salem.8.The Joint Director Central Bureau of Investigation Haddows Road, Chennai 6.. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 8th respondent totake over the investigation of the case in Crime No.16/2006 from thefile of the 7th respondent, investigate the same and file final reportwithin time frame fixed and consequently to direct the 2nd, 5th and 6threspondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner.For Petitioner: Mr.R.SankarasubbuFor Respondents: Mr.A.Arumugam Special Government Pleaderfor RR2 & 7ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner hasbrought forth this petition under the category Public InterestLitigation (PIL), seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 8threspondent to take over the investigation of Crime No.16/2006 fromthe file of the 7th respondent and to file the final report within thetime frame.2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused and alsothe materials produced by the learned Special Government Pleader.Counsel on either side are heard.3.The case of the petitioner is that he is representing 127students who were affected and aggrieved by the cheating committed bythe 5th and 6th respondents; that they have swindled lot of sums fromthem; that the 5th respondent did not get approval from the 4threspondent for number of years, but has been running the institution;that the 2nd respondent has been running the technical and diplomacourses without any approval by the 4th respondent as per the AllIndia Council for Technical Education Act, 1987; that more than 30000students were cheated by them in the past; that the 3rd respondent wasfunctioning under the control of the 1st respondent; that the 2ndrespondent was running the technical and diploma courses throughvarious private agencies like 5th and 6th respondents; that they gotvarious brand names like 5th and 6th respondents; that the 6threspondent has not followed any norms for admission, curriculums,teaching system and examination method, but has issued the markstatement without conducting examinations and in particular notconducting practical examination; that there was no adequate teachingstaff, but attractive advertisements were given withmisrepresentations, and invariably the students aggrieved have paidRs.50000/-, Rs.75000/- and Rs.100000/- respectively; that thepetitioner joined the 6th respondent under the category of Diploma inHotel Management catering for two years from 2004; that the 6threspondent made a demand for Rs.59000/-; that he borrowed Rs.30000/-and paid to the 6th respondent; that the classes were conducted onlyfor a period of six months, and then he came to know about the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ irregularities; that when he questioned, he was transferred from the6th respondent to SISI, Vadapazhani Branch, which was also being rununder the control of the 6th respondent; that when he met thePrincipal, he was threatened; that thereafter, a complaint was lodgedbefore the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 9.1.2006, but withoutany response; that in the meanwhile, one Tamilarasan lodged acomplaint on 15.4.2006 before the 7th respondent police; that a casecame to be registered in Crime No.16 of 2006 pursuant to thecomplaint against the 6th respondent, but nothing has happened tillthis time; that not only the petitioner, but also number of studentsin hundreds were cheated by the 5th and 6th respondents; that sinceafter the registration of the case, no steps have yet been taken,these students would require the transfer of investigation from the7th respondent to the 8th respondent CBI, and hence the petition hasbeen brought forth.4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating theaverments found in the affidavit, took the Court to theadvertisements made by the 5th and 6th respondents and also theaverments in the complaint made by Tamilarasan pursuant to which acase in Crime No.16/2006 was registered. Under the circumstances, hewould submit that it would require for the transfer of investigationto the CBI. 5.The Court heard the learned Special Government Pleader. Hetook the Court to the materials placed by him. He would also urgethat it is true that a case was registered in Crime No.16/2006pursuant to the complaint dated 15.4.2006 given by one Kumaranagainst the 6th respondent; that the case was actually taken up forinvestigation, investigated and referred as mistake of fact; that theonly grievance that was ventilated in the course of the complaint wasthat the institutions were not recognized; and that when theinvestigation was on, it was found that they were permitted to carryon the course till 2009, and further when some of the students didnot continue the education, they were called, and the amounts towhich they were entitled including Kumaran who lodged the complaintpursuant to which a case came to be registered, were actuallysettled. The learned Special Government Pleader placed before theCourt a copy of the report wherein it is stated that the case wasdropped as mistake of fact. 6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the rivalsubmissions made.7.The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner in the courseof this PIL is the non-recognition of the respondents 5 and 6 withoutwhich they have been carrying on the course, and hence the petitionerand other students were affected, and a case came to be registered bythe 7th respondent. It is not in controversy that a complaint wasgiven by one Kumaran pursuant to which a case was registered in CrimeNo.16/2006 by the Central Crime Branch, Salem, under Sections 120-B,420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 506(ii) IPC. A perusal of thematerials and also the report placed by the State, would clearlyindicate that actually investigation was conducted, and it was felt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the course could be extended as per the communication addressed,till the period 2009. Added circumstance was that including thecomplainant all the persons who did not want to pursue their studies,were called, and they have also got back the respective amounts.Under the circumstances, there was nothing to indicate that they hadgot any mens rea for cheating, and thus it was not a fit case forfurther investigation and accordingly put an end by referring it asmistake of fact. 8.This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of thefacts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for thereliefs for two reasons. Firstly, the respondents 5 and 6 at thetime of investigation were allowed to continue the course till theyear 2009, and secondly, the complainant who has given the complainton 15.4.2006 pursuant to which the case was registered in CrimeNo.16/2006, and also the other students have received the amountsfrom the respondents 5 and 6 since they did not want to pursue thestudies. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of the Courtby the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Government ofTamil Nadu gave instructions to the respondents 5 and 6 not tocontinue the course beyond 2005. Once the case has been referred toas mistake of fact, this Court is of the view that no question oftransfer of investigation from the 7th respondent to the 8th respondentwould arise. However, if really the petitioner is aggrieved over thecase being referred as mistake of fact, the course is always open tohim under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there cannot be anyimpediment for him in doing so. Hence no question of granting a writwould arise. At the same time, The 7th respondent is directed to serveon the complainant Kumaran, a notice as to the referring of the caseas mistake of fact. 9.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarnsvTo:1.The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Small Scale Industries New Delhi2.The Small Industries ServiceInstitute No.65/1, GST Road Guindy, Chennai 600 032. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Director Directorate of Technical Education Guindy, Chennai4.All India Council forTechnical Education New Delhi5.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Salem.6.The Joint Director Central Bureau of Investigation Haddows Road, Chennai 6.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.61152 WP No.40356 of 2006BV {CO}TP/23.11.2009.