Zubair Idrees Dadi vs. Addl. Commissioner (Preventive), CGST

Facts

The petitioner, Zubair Idrees Dadi, filed a writ application before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude an investigation/inquiry concerning a complaint he had lodged on August 31, 2020. The petitioner was an accused in a criminal investigation under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for which he had been granted anticipatory bail. He claimed to have been wrongly implicated and had made a representation to the Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara, requesting an inquiry into his complaint. The respondent authorities, through the learned AGP, submitted that a criminal investigation and a departmental inquiry were ongoing. The petitioner sought the conclusion of the inquiry and a copy of the inquiry report.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ application by directing the Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara, to look into the complaint lodged by the writ applicant dated August 31, 2020, and complete the inquiry within a period of three months from the date of the order. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that when a representation is made to a statutory authority regarding an ongoing inquiry or investigation, and the authority undertakes to conclude the same within a stipulated period, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the authority to adhere to that timeline, without delving into the merits of the underlying dispute. The operative direction was to complete the inquiry within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to conclude the investigation/inquiry initiated pursuant to the petitioner's complaint dated August 31, 2020, within a time-bound manner, and provide a copy of the inquiry report? The petitioner argued that he had lodged a complaint with the Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara, on August 31, 2020, alleging he was wrongly implicated in the present litigation. He sought a direction from the Court for the Commissioner to look into this representation, conduct an inquiry, and complete it expeditiously. The respondent revenue authorities, represented by the learned AGP, submitted that a criminal investigation was ongoing concerning the subject matter of the litigation, and a departmental inquiry had also been initiated and was in progress. Upon instructions, the learned AGP stated that the inquiry would be completed within three months from the date of the order and that the petitioner's complaint would be considered during this inquiry.