Darshan Singh, J. - (1.) The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the Haryana Vigilance Manual approved by the State Government vide memo dated 28.07.2004 being ultra vires to Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Prayer is also for issuance of direction to respondents to register the FIR and to conduct investigation on the written information through series of representations/Legal Notice to the respondents as per the procedure stipulated under the Cr.P.C, for commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (for short 'IPC') along with other consequential reliefs.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an ex-servicemen and law abiding citizen. He is bound by the legal duty emanating from the Article 51A (Fundamental Duties) and Section 39 of Cr.P.C. to give information with respect to the commission of offences. He contended that the rampant corruption has taken place in execution of the Panchayat works in his village Kanwala, Tehsil and District Ambala in the construction of streets, drainage channels, fictitious earth filling etc. He had moved various representations and even got a legal notice served to the respondents for taking the action. He even filed Civil Writ Petition No. 21816 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2015 with a direction to respondent no. 2 therein to take a decision on the legal notice dated 08.09.2015 submitted by the petitioner, but no action has been taken under the garb of the provisions of the Haryana Vigilance Manual.
(3.) He further contended that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., 2013(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 979 : 2013(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 389 : AIR 2014 SC 187 , registration of First Information Report with respect to the commission of cognisable offence is mandatory. Thus, he contended that the provisions of Haryana Vigilance Manual are ultra vires to Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Cr.P.C as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari's case (supra).;