Sikkim High Court
WP(C)/40/2010 of Ganesh Kumar Pradhan and Others Vs State Of Sikkim and others on 30 September 2010
No. 03. 30.0 (Dinaka Pin/jk .10 an, CJ) Case No Order (s) with Signature (s) BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P.WANGDI, JUDGE resent: Mr. Jorgay Namka, Ms. Zola Megi and Ms. Denkila Bhutia, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. J.B. Pradhan,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AT GANGTOK(CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
DATED : 30.09.2010
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JUSTICEAND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. WANGDI
Writ Petition (C) No. 40 of 2010
Shri Ganesh Kumar Pradhan,S/o Late Devi Bahadur Pradhan,Aged about 72 years,S/o Late Devi Bahadur Pradhan,Aged about 72 years, Shri Netra Kumar Pradhan,S/o Ganesh Kumar Prpadhan,Aged about 48 years, Smt. Renuka Pradhan,W/o Netra Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 42 years, Shri Dambar Kumar Pradhan,S/o Ganesh Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 43 years,S/o Ganesh Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 43 years, Smt. Sita Pradhan,W/o Dambar Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 41 years, Shri Narendra Kumar Pradhan,S/o Late Devi Bahadur Pradhan,Aged about 66 years, Shri Krishna Kumar Pradhan,S/o Narendra Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 42 years, Shri Dilip Kumar Pradhan,S/o Narendra Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 41 years, Smt. Chandra Kala Pradhan,W/o Dilip Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 41 years,
10. Shri Rabin Kumarpradhan,S/o Narendra Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 37 years,
11. Smt. Geeta pradhan,W/o Rabin Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 35 years,
12. Shri Rajesh pradhan,S/o Narendra Kumar Pradhan,Aged about 33 years, The above named Petitioner No.1 to 5 are:R/o Changeylakha, Rongli Sub-Division,East Sikkim &
The above named Petitioner No.6 to 12 are:R/o Rongli Bazar, Rongli Sub-DMsion, East Sikkim.
Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Sikkim,Through the Chief Secretary,Government of Sikkim,Gangtok,Sikkim.
The District Collector,Office of the District Collectorate,Gangtok, East Sikklm.
The Sub-Division Magistrate,Rongli Sub-Division,East Sikkim.
Page 1 of 3
£®..-.
4. Shri Benu prasad sharma,S/o Rudra Prasad Sharma,R/o Changeylakha,East Sikkim.
....Respondents
For the petitioner
Mr. Jorgay Namka, Ms. Zola Megiand Ms. Denkila Bhutia,Advocates.and Ms. Denkila Bhutia,Advocates.
Forthe respondents : Mr. J.B. Pradhan, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Karma ThinlayNamgyal, Government Advocateand Mr. S.K. Chettri, Asstt. Govt.Advocate.Namgyal, Government Advocateand Mr. S.K. Chettri, Asstt. Govt.Advocate.
JUDGMENT
Dinakaran, CJ
Heard Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned counsel for thepetitioners and Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral for the State-respondents.
2.1 Mr. Jorgay Namkha, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners effectively contends that the impugned orders dated30.10.2006 and 07.08.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 areliable to be quashed on the sole ground of violation of principlesof natural ].ustice as the authorities concerned, having relied uponthe Report dated 24.12.2005 of the Vigilance Department and the report dated 22.11.2005 of the Special Branch, Sikkim Policefor cancelling the respective Certificates of Identification of thepetitioners, ought to have furnished copies of the same to thepetitioners during the enquiry, before passing the impugnedorders dated 30.10.2006 and 07.08.2008. But the respondenthad not furnished those Reports to the petitioners before holdingthe impugned enquiry.
Page 2 of 3
2.2 0n the other hand the learned counsel for thepetitioners further contends that the said Reports relied upon bythe authorities concerned was called for only after passing therespective impugned orders. However, we do not propose to gointo these contentions because Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learnedAdditional Advocate General appearing for the State respondentsfairly concedes that the Reports of Vigilance Department dated24.12.2005 and Special Branch of Sikkim Police dated22.11.2005 were not furnished to the petitioners during theenquiry and before passing the impugned orders dated30.10.2006 and 07.08.2008 cancelling the Certificates ofIdentification of the respective petitioners. The learned AdditionalAdvocate General further submits that the matter may beremitted to the respective authorities and they may be givenliberty to furnish the copies of the Reports (i) dated 24.12.2005
`:::; _ .--.
of the Vigilance Department and (ii) dated 22.11.2005 of theSpecial Branch, Sikkim Police and to hold an enquiry and proceedfurther in the matter in accordance with law.
We do not think that the learned counsel for thepetitioners will have any objection to the suggestion of thelearned Additional Advocate General.
4. In view of the above submission of learned AdditionalAdvocate General, the impugned proceedings dated 3.10.2006and 07.08.2008 cancelling the Certificates of Identification of thepetitioners are quashed, without going into the merits anddemerits of the contentions of the petitioners, but on the soleground that the impugned proceedings suffer from violation ofprinciples of natural justice. The matter is consequently remittedto the respective competent authorities with the direction tofurnish the copies of the Reports (i) dated 24.12.2005 of theVigilance Department and (ii) dated 22.11.2005 of the SpecialBranch, Sikkim Police and any other documents that were reliefupon by the respondents and to hold a fresh enquiry giving a fairand reasonable opportunity to the petitioners in compliance withthe principles of natural justice and pass appropriate orders in \.;Ji;-....
accordance with law. Till then there shall be an order to maintainstatus quo ante.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly, however, no cost.
IndexInternetPin/jk
---;::`
30.09.10
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…