Writ Ordinarily Not Maintainable Against Findings Of Fact By Full Bench Of Lokpal Of India: Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost Of 25k
The Allahabad High Court recently imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on a party seeking to challenge the findings of the Full Bench of Lokpal of India in a complaint made by him.The bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar held that findings of fact cannot be gone into by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, when the same have been considered in detail by a Full Bench...
The Allahabad High Court recently imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on a party seeking to challenge the findings of the Full Bench of Lokpal of India in a complaint made by him.
The bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar held that findings of fact cannot be gone into by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, when the same have been considered in detail by a Full Bench of Lokpal of India.
Petitioner claimed to be an employee of Bharat Immunological and Biological Corporation Limited, and also member and Secretary of the Union working for welfare of its members and the Corporation. He filed a complaint before the Lokpal of India against the General Manager, Company Secretary & Assistant General Manager (AGM) of the Corporation, alleging their involvement in various irregularities of in appointments, promotions. Allegations were also made that they had approved sub-standard quality of polio vaccines and had been taking reimbursements from the corporation based on fake taxi bills.
Full Bench of Lokpal of India disposed of the said complaint directing Union of India to look into the complaint for conducting an enquiry and taking necessary action in the matter. Thereafter, petitioner moved another complaint before Lokpal of India which was rejected by detailed order of Full Bench of Lokpal of India.
The Court observed that the Lokpal of India had recorded a specific finding that no malafide or wrongdoings “have been noticed against the concerned public servants associated with procurement of bulk OPV for BIPCOL.” Further, no other allegation made by the petitioner could be substantiated during the course of the inquiry, accordingly, the Full Bench had rejected the complaint.
The Court held,
“Once the complaint had been considered in detail by the Full Bench of Lokpal of India and the same had also been rejected then the said finding of fact cannot be generally looked into and examined by the writ court. It is well settled that on behalf of a complainant, a writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable. (Ref. Amin Khan v. State of U.P., 2008 (2) AWC 2002 and Special Appeal No.382 of 2008 (Guru Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 13.3.2008.”
Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the petitioner.
Case Title: Jhamman Singh v. Union Of India And 5 Others [WRIT - C No. - 34359 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 405