Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 24: Expressing serious concern over delay in launch of prosecution against officers and officials involved in the much-publicized Roshni land scam, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Mohd Yaqoob Mir and Justice B S Walia today directed State Vigilance Organization to show some promptness in the matter. The DB also sought fresh status report from the Vigilance clearly elucidating the reasons behind delay in finalization of process in six FIRs closed as proved.
When the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled Prof S K Bhalla Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others came up for hearing, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioner submitted that despite concluding as proved, the State Vigilance Organization has not made any further progress in six FIRs vis-à-vis launching prosecution against the involved officers and officials.
While pointing towards the status report submitted by Director, State Vigilance Organization, Sheikh Owais Ahmad, he said, “it has been stated in the report that one FIR has been remanded back to the concerned SSP for further investigation in the light of representations submitted by some accused persons”.
Stating that process of influencing the Roshni FIRs has began, Advocate Ahmad said, “the Vigilance Organization is not competent to send the matter back in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in case titled Subramanian Swami Versus Manmohan Singh”, adding “the Supreme Court has clearly mentioned in this case that the person for whose prosecution sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the competent authority before it takes a decision in the matter”.
He further submitted that the State Vigilance Organization has also not complied with the previous directions of the Division Bench whereby it had sought the status of all 547 cases of abuse of Roshni Scheme pointed out by the Principal Accountant General in the audit in six test-checked districts.
After hearing Advocate Ahmad and Senior Additional Advocate General Gagan Basotra, Division Bench observed, “the latest status report, on perusal, is not found to be satisfactory”, adding “the position as was reflected in the earlier order is almost the same except for one FIR, which has been remanded back for further investigation in light of representations of some accused officers and officials”.
Stating that respondents are required to show some promptness in the matter, the DB observed, “in the status report it is nowhere mentioned as to when the five FIRs were sent to the branch SSPs for clarification and what is the latest status regarding the steps taken by them”, adding “after all there has to be some time-limit for finalizing the process as permissible under law”.
Expressing dis-satisfaction over the status report, the DB said, “tardy pace by no stretch of imagination shall be substitute for effective action, be it in favour or otherwise”. Accordingly, DB directed that fresh status report be filed clearly indicating as to when these cases have been received back from the SVO, when these cases have been sent to the branch SSPs and as to why till date process has not been finalized.
“For submission of such cases, in view of the conclusions of the investigating agency for accord of sanction by the competent authority, latest status report be filed within two weeks”, DB directed, adding the SVO shall also apprise the court about 547 cases by or before next date of hearing.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel