Bachittar Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Bachittar Singh, operating a transport business in Rupnagar, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the State Authorities to remove illegal private check posts allegedly set up by respondent No. 5, Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, who was collecting illegal royalty or 'Gunda Tax' from truckers. The petitioner also sought directions for the official respondents to install check posts as per a letter from the Secretary-cum-Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Punjab. The State, through affidavits from the District Mining Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police, initially denied the existence of illegal check posts and collection of 'Gunda Tax', stating that government check posts were being established and investigations found no illegal collection. However, a coordinate bench, noting the variance in stands, directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Rupnagar, to submit an independent report. This report confirmed the existence of illegal check points and royalty collection.

Held

The Court held that the prayer for transferring the investigation to the CBI was rejected, as the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in Bimal Gurung's case (involvement of high officials, accusation against top officials, or tainted/biased investigation) were not met. The Court found no direct nexus to prove private respondent No. 5's involvement in setting up illegal nakas and extorting money. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner himself had numerous FIRs registered against him, suggesting potential personal grudge or professional rivalry as the motive for the allegations. The Court also observed that three FIRs had been registered by the State Government against individuals for alleged setting up of nakas and collecting 'Gunda Tax', which would determine the involvement of respondent No. 5. The Court disposed of the writ petition in view of the State's stand that appropriate action had been initiated against culprits and erring officials, binding the State to its various affidavits and proposals. The Court directed the State to conclude these proposals within three months and submit a compliance/status report on proposed amendments, complaint redressal mechanisms, and disciplinary proceedings against erring officials within six months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State Authorities are obligated to remove illegal private check posts and prevent the collection of illegal royalty/tax, as mandated by Rule 74 of the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules, 2013, and administrative directives. - Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that illegal check posts were established by respondent No. 5, causing financial loss and harassment to transporters, and that the State had a duty to remove them and install official check posts. - Revenue/State's Argument: Initially, the State denied the existence of illegal check posts and collection of 'Gunda Tax', claiming investigations found no such activity. Later, after the independent report, the State acknowledged issues and stated that action was being initiated against culprits and erring officials. 2. Whether the investigation into the alleged illegal activities should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). - Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought transfer of investigation to the CBI. - Revenue/State's Argument: The State did not explicitly argue against the transfer in the provided text, but the Court addressed this by citing precedents. 3. Whether action should be taken against private respondent No. 5 for allegedly setting up illegal check posts and extorting money. - Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought action against respondent No. 5. - Revenue/State's Argument: The State did not explicitly argue against action against respondent No. 5, but the Court considered the respondent's written statement.