D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This civil review application has been preferred for review of an order dated 28th January, 2013 passed by a Division Bench of this court in W.P.(PIL) No. 2002 of 2012, especially with respect to the observations made in paragraph no. 14 read with paragraph No. 22 of the said order.
(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, I.G.,Vigilance, viz. Head of the Vigilance Department. The Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 28th January, 2013 has made certain observation against this petitioner in the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation, while directing that the investigation be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, in paragraph No. 14 to be read with Paragraph 22 of the said order, hence, this civil review has been preferred . It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that without giving any notice to the petitioner these observations were made by the Division Bench. In fact, the petitioner is neither lethargic nor responsible for the observations made by the Division Bench about lethargic approach of the Vigilance Department in carrying out the investigation. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and others reported in (1999)6 SCC 667, para 173 to 179 and on the basis of the aforesaid decision it has been submitted that contents of paragraph 14 to be read with paragraph 22 of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the W.P.(PIL) No. 2002 of 2012 dated 28th January, 2013 may be omitted in so far as they are against this petitioner.
(3.) Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that W.P.(PIL) No. 2002 of 2012 was preferred because there were serious allegations of horse trading in Rajya Sabha elections in the year 2010 in the State of Jharkhand. A sting operation was conducted by the National News Channel, IBN7, New Delhi wherein some MLAs have been shown saying that they have been bribed by the candidates who contested the Rajya Sabha Election held in the year 2010. The M.L.A.s in question are as under: (i) Simon Marandi (ii) Rajesh Ranjan, (iii) Uma Shankar Akela (iv) Sawna Lakra (v) Teklal Mahto (Expired) and Another The aforesaid names have been given by the counsel for the petitioner. He could not furnish the name of the 6th person. ;