- (1.) Delay condoned. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.
(2.) This appeal is preferred against the orders dated 11.9.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition filed by the appellant, there by referring the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for probing into certain aspects, which are specifically mentioned therein and read as under:- (1) The entire list of blacklisted firms indicated in Annexure R-4/1 as also all the blacklisted firms existing today and the transactions entered into by such firms in favour of the existing firms purportedly acting under a sale/transfer/mortgage or change in constitution be looked into minutely. The Court has been informed that earlier an exercise was conducted in 2005. Be that as it may, all the currently blacklisted firms and their subsequent sale/transfer and previous change in constitution shall be looked into. Noticing the suggestive relentless violation with the connivance of the officials of the Food & Supplies Department, the enquiry shall also indicate the role of each such District Food & Supplies Controllers who cleared such firms which are now raising their claims. (2) If the enquiry indicates the complicity of such officials of the Food & Supplies Department, then immediately an F.I.R. should be registered against them and their assets investigated. (3) If it is established that the transactions are sham, legal action be initiated against the erring rice mills and all this would be without prejudice to the rights of the F.C.I. to establish its losses and recover the same from such erring and defaulting millers. Insofar as the writ petition of the appellant is concerned, same is still pending. CBI is given six months' time to produce the record and matter is listed for further proceedings on 20.3.2012. It transpires that while hearing the case of the petitioner, the Court noticed certain objectionable practices in the system where the Punjab Government and its agencies offer paddy for custom milling to the rice mills and then oblige the FCI to lift the same and when the rice is found to be defective, it has to meet the burden from its own pocket. Needless to mention, observations of the learned single Judge in the entire order are of prima facie nature, justifying the holding of the enquiry. Ultimately, the enquiry would be conducted by the CBI on the basis of material produced before it or gathered by it without being influenced by the observations of the learned single Judge.
(3.) No doubt, in the process, the learned single Judge has also made certain observations qua the petitioner. However, as pointed out above, the petitioner's writ petition is still pending and no final conclusion has been arrived at by the learned single Judge. It would always be open to the petitioner, at the time of final hearing of the matter, to impress upon the Court that petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. Insofar as order of enquiry by the CBI is concerned, the CBI is not to enquire into the case of the petitioner specifically, but that enquiry relates to the alleged malpractices prevailing in the system generally. We do not want to interfere with such a discretionary order passed by the learned single Judge, having regard to certain material which was placed before the learned single Judge and which warranted detailed investigation to be conducted by CBI. Dismissed.;