D.N.PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Hatia PS Case No. 240 of 2002 corresponding to GR No. 3540 of 2002, registered under Sections 429, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that one Director, Public Relation -cum - Executive Engineer lodged an FIR alleging therein that Jharkhand State Electricity Board has invited a Tender in pursuance to NIT No. 185/J SEB/PR/01 for construction of 52 Power Sub -Station of 33/11 KV in which 14 Companies have submitted their applications. It is further alleged that Ms. MECON, Ranchi being the Technical and Commercial Adviser of the Board has enquired the fact and the Companies have been recommended for opening their price bid. After opening the price bid on 13 -5 -2002 and after scrutinizing the file M/s. MECON has found the rate of M/s. Jyoti Structure Ltd. as lowest, the cost of which was Rs. 131.12 crore. It is further stated that the File No. M (T)/112 was sent before the Chief Engineer (Stores and Purchase), who on the basis of the rate quoted by M/s. Jyoti structure Limited, Mumbai has sent the same for sanction before the Member (Technical), the petitioner, who has given sanction on 29 -6 -2002 and sent the file before the Chief Engineer (Stores and Purchase). The said file was sent by the Chief Engineer (Stores and Purchase) to the Member (Technical) for the purpose of negotiation on price and other issues for which the sanction was granted by him on 5 -7 -2002. It is further alleged that Shri S.N. Akhauri, the petitioner, in his detailed noted dated 26 -8 -2002 has not mentioned anything about the financial matters but after enquiry it was found that the petitioner in his earlier order dated 29 -6 -2002 in page No. 8 on the left side has entered "high cost" and above his signature has written "cost is too high" after 10/11 -9 -2002. It is alleged that the petitioner has done all these works for his benefit resulting into heavy financial loss to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board because of the reason that due to this Act, the entire thing has been given a wrong direction and he has made all efforts to allot the work to L -2. It is then stated that since the Vigilance enquiry is being done by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and the Inquiry Report was sent to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board by the Inspector General (Vigilance), on the basis of which order was passed for lodging the FIR. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. Counter -affidavit have also been filed from the side of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 claiming therein that the present writ application is not maintainable, as the FIR has been lodged on the basis of the allegations which, prima facie, constitute the offence and the matter is still under investigation. It is further averred that Inspector General (Vigilance) of JSEB already submitted a detailed report finding the conduct of the petitioner being unbecoming of a senior officer of his stature as he made extrapolation after though with a view to put the JSEB under great loss and as such there is merit in this application, which is fit to be dismissed.
(3.) MR . Dilip Jerath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that Inspector General (Vigilace) inquired into the matter and submitted the report indicating as extrapolation and addition of "high cost" and "cost is too high" subsequent to 29 -6 -2002 and even if the extrapolation has been made by the petitioner, that would not amount to commit any offence. It is also submitted that extrapolation meaning as per Blacks Law Dictionary is "The process of estimating an unknown number outside the range of known numbers. Term sometime used in cases when a Court deduces a principle of law from another case". It is further argued that whatever allegations is made in the FIR, the same does not make out any offence and if no offence is made out, the entire FIR is liable to be quashed. It is further argued that this FIR is the outcome of the mala fide attitude on the part of the Chairman, JSEB as prior to initiation of the work, the petitioner has given suggestions to the Chairman, JSEB that the work in question be completed by more than one Contractors on the rate of lowest tender so that the work can be completed expeditiously but this plea of the petitioner was not considered by the Chairman, though the Honble Energy Minister has also directed the Chairman, JSEB to complete the work from two bidders on the lowest rate vide his letter No. 149 dated 30 -7 -2002, rather the Chairman, JSEB and other Member and the officials of Board only for wrongful gain has given the work to the bidder, M/s. Jyoti Structures Ltd. on higher rate. The petitioner categorically stated in his letter dated 10 -9 -2002 that when L -1 rate of all the four packages were found to be coming from one end by the same firm then it was decided by the Board vide Resolution No. 125 that out of the four packages, work of two packages shall be allotted to L -1 tendered and regarding rest of the two, a Committee was constituted. The petitioner even admitted to have made extrapolation by writing high cost and cost is too high which does not constitute any offence. It is further argued that the instant FIR has been lodged, inspite of the fact that Vigilance Inquiry is being done but ignoring the same, the Chairman JSEB has directed to conduct an internal enquiry and lodged the FIR. The findings recorded by the Inspector General (Vigilance) JSEB are nothing but conjecture and surmises as well as the distribution of work to more than one tenders was a different matter altogether as the same relates to timely completion of work and the petitioner had raised the issues regarding the high cost in a meeting of Honble the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Energy Minister, Energy Secretary and Chairman of the Board. The Chairman was agreed to allot packages B and C on the suggestion of the Chief Engineer (Stores and Purchase) and Member (Technical) on 12 -8 -2002. Again on 27 -8 -2002, the Chairman changed his mind and ordered for all the four packages, A, B, C and D and endorsed the file directly to the Chief Engineer (Stores and Purchase), who in turn on 27 -8 -2002 itself issued the draft of letter. Thus, from the allegations, as made out in the FIR, no offence is made out and, therefore, the entire FIR is fit to be quashed. 1996 (9) SCC 766 and State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P. Sharma and Anr., (1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 222).;