SHUMANA SEN and ANR. . Vs. S.K. SRIVASTAVAAND and ANR. .
EmailAppeal: WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1010 OF 2014
Petitioner: SHUMANA SEN and ANR. .
Respondent: S.K. SRIVASTAVAAND and ANR. .
Judges: ANIL R. DAVE , ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Date of Judgment: Sep 18, 2015
JUDGEMENT:
NON- CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1010 OF 2014
SHUMANA SEN & ANR. … PETITIONER(S)
VS.
S.K. SRIVASTAVAAND & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the grievance of the petitioners is that the complaints made by them, which have been referred to in the petition, are not looked into by any one.
2. In the circumstances, we direct that the Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) will nominate an officer, higher in rank than Respondent No.1, who will look into the grievance of the petitioners within six months from today and shall suggest appropriate action, if any, which should be initiated against the concerned person(s).
3. During the course of hearing, the learned Solicitor General has submitted that three chargesheets, which have been annexed to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 – Department concerned, have been filed against Respondent No.1, but for some reasons no action has been taken in pursuance of the said chargesheets.
4. It is directed that the enquiry in pursuance of the afore-stated chargesheets shall be concluded within six months from today.
5. We are sure that the parties to the litigation shall cooperate in the enquiry proceedings.
6. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
…………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
……………..J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 18th September, 2015.
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1010 OF 2014
SHUMANA SEN & ANR. … PETITIONER(S)
VS.
S.K. SRIVASTAVAAND & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the grievance of the petitioners is that the complaints made by them, which have been referred to in the petition, are not looked into by any one.
2. In the circumstances, we direct that the Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) will nominate an officer, higher in rank than Respondent No.1, who will look into the grievance of the petitioners within six months from today and shall suggest appropriate action, if any, which should be initiated against the concerned person(s).
3. During the course of hearing, the learned Solicitor General has submitted that three chargesheets, which have been annexed to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 – Department concerned, have been filed against Respondent No.1, but for some reasons no action has been taken in pursuance of the said chargesheets.
4. It is directed that the enquiry in pursuance of the afore-stated chargesheets shall be concluded within six months from today.
5. We are sure that the parties to the litigation shall cooperate in the enquiry proceedings.
6. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
…………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
……………..J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 18th September, 2015.
