Facts
The Petitioner, proprietor of a firm involved in railway traction work, was an L-1 bidder in a 2015 tender by the Ministry of Railways but was not awarded the contract
Source reference: p.2, para 5Attributing this to the alleged misconduct of Respondent No. 2 (Member Traction, Railway Board), the Petitioner filed various complaints with the CBI, CVC, and PMO
Source reference: p.2, para 6Previously, the Petitioner’s PIL on the same issue (W.P.(C) 5178/2019) was dismissed by a Division Bench, which noted the litigation appeared to be driven by "personal vengeance" rather than public interest
Source reference: p.3, para 8However, a subsequent Review Petition granted liberty to file fresh proceedings with proper averments
Source reference: p.3, para 9In the present writ, the Petitioner sought an enquiry into work orders awarded during Respondent No. 2’s tenure and the quashing of Respondent No. 2’s appointment
Source reference: p.1, para 1During proceedings, the Court directed the CBI and the Ministry to file status reports on pending complaints
Source reference: p.4, para 11Issues
1. Whether a court-mandated enquiry or the quashing of Respondent No. 2’s appointment is warranted under Article 226 when specialized investigative agencies have already examined the allegations
Source reference: p.8, para 172. Whether any complaints or investigations against Respondent No. 2 remained pending that required judicial intervention
Source reference: p.7, para 14Law Applied
The Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: p.8, para 15It relied on the principle that judicial review of administrative action and appointments is limited when specialized statutory oversight bodies, such as the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), have conducted investigations and found allegations to be unsubstantiated
Source reference: p.8, para 15The Court also acknowledged the relevance of "Vigilance Clearance" provided by the government in service matters and the finality of investigations closed upon the advice of the CVC
Source reference: p.3, para 8; p.8, para 15Reasoning
The Court analyzed the affidavits submitted by Respondent No. 3 (CBI) and Respondents No. 1 and 4 (Ministry and CVC).
Source reference: p.4, para 12; p.7, para 14The CBI's affidavit confirmed that six complaints against Respondent No. 2 were duly examined and disposed of, with no matters currently pending
Source reference: p.4, para 12; p.7, para 14Similarly, the Ministry and CVC reported that various allegations were investigated by the Vigilance Department, which concluded that the charges were not substantiated; consequently, the files were closed following CVC advice
Source reference: p.6, para 13; p.8, para 15The Court observed that Respondent No. 2 had retired during the pendency of the petition
Source reference: p.8, para 16Since the specialized agencies found no evidence of wrongdoing, the Court determined there was no factual or legal basis to grant the reliefs of an enquiry or quashing of an appointment that had already concluded
Source reference: p.8, para 17Holding
The Court held that since all complaints against Respondent No. 2 had been investigated and closed by the CBI and CVC for lack of evidence, no further judicial relief could be granted
The Court answered the issues in the negative, finding no merit in the Petitioner's claims.
Source reference: p.8, para 18-19The writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed
Source reference: p.8, para 18-19Original Court PDF
Satish MandaokarvsUnion Of India And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in