Syed Feroz vs. The Department Of Personal And Training

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the CBI (3rd Respondent) to register an FIR on his complaint dated 04.10.2023. The complaint alleged that two GST officials, Mr. Manish Sharma and Mr. V.D. Anand Kumar, visited his business on 01.07.2023, demanded GST records, falsely claimed irregularities, and threatened a fine of Rs. 25.00 lakhs. Subsequently, they allegedly demanded and collected Rs. 5.00 lakhs on 04.07.2023, and later demanded an additional Rs. 3.00 lakhs on 05.07.2023. The petitioner stated that the GST officials are Central Government employees and that the CBI had not acted on his complaint. The petitioner also sought an interim direction to the Saroornagar Police Station (4th Respondent) not to file a charge sheet in Crime No. 618/2023 pending the writ petition.

Held

The Court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, disposed of the Writ Petition. The Court directed the 3rd Respondent (CBI) to consider the complaint dated 04.10.2023, lodged by the petitioner against two GST officials, Mr. Manish Sharma and Mr. V.D. Anand Kumar, and to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. This direction was to be complied with within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality or arbitrariness of the CBI's inaction, but rather directed them to proceed with consideration of the complaint. The issue regarding the Saroornagar Police Station not filing a charge sheet was not explicitly addressed in the final order, but the overall disposal of the writ petition implies its resolution in conjunction with the primary direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the 3rd Respondent (CBI) in not considering and registering an FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 04.10.2023, concerning alleged corruption by GST officials, is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the Anti-Corruption Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Article 14 of the Constitution, and principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the CBI's failure to act on his complaint, which detailed the alleged demand and collection of Rs. 5.00 lakhs by GST officials under threat of a fine, was illegal and arbitrary. He contended that the GST officials are Central Government employees, making the CBI the appropriate authority to investigate. The petitioner relied on the Anti-Corruption Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. The 3rd Respondent (CBI), through its Special Public Prosecutor, submitted that it would inquire into the matter and consider the complaint if directed by the Court, in accordance with the law.