Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday rejected the petition submitted by the former Chief of Police of Param Bir Bir Singh, holding that his request to cancel the two initial questions ordered by the state government against him could not be maintained before.
The Justice S Shinde and Justice N J Jarad said the right drug for Singh was to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (cat), where he could “greatly agitate the problem of Mala Fide and Vendetta”.
The High Court said it did not observe something more, but the dismissal did not prevent Singh from challenging the initial question in court, which could then decide on problems that were not influenced by the order.
Singh challenged the two initial questions ordered on April 1 and April 20 said this “hasty” was ordered as “Vendetta and Revenge” by the Minister of State Department Deshmukh.
He said that he was targeted because he had written to the Chairman of the Minister of Uddhav Thackeray on March 20 which accused the “corrupt malpractice” by the Minister of Home Affairs, and he had submitted a petition to seek CBI investigation.
The High Court said that Singh’s claim for the “counter-explosion” by the state “Prima Facie did not have land in connection with the actions started” against him with complaints submitted by other police officers, Anup Dange, whose approach to Singh came from February 2, 2021, ” Long before the controversy emerged above the scare explosives “outside the antilia, the residence of Industrialist Mukesh Ambani.
Request for April 1 must be carried out by the Director General of Police Sanjay Pandey, who resigned on April 30, after that the country handed it to another official on May 3 which accused the ranking of Singh to him.
Pandey, through his advice Navroze Seervai, has challenged the maintenance of Singh’s challenge before the High Court, as it has a country through special advice from Darius Khambata.
Both of them said he could approach cats first because the problem was allegedly violated by Singh from the Behavior regulations throughout India in 1968.
The advice of Singh Mahesh Jethmalani said “It was not an administrative investigation” and “only the destination appointed Sanjay Pandey” the only one pointed Sanjay Pandey to do It was to persuade me (Singh) to draw a letter on March 20 ” May 3, the state has given two separate questions, one in the complaint submitted by DANGE officers, to the Bureau of DG, anti-corruption, and one to the secretary of the additional head.
No one survives in the challenge of it as a result, argues Khambata.
It is clear that the order April 20 for the preliminary investigation came from the incident G Booked by Singh March 20, said the High Court to underline that the wicked allegations made by former police commissioners were also rooted in reality and needed to be adjudicated by a competent court.
The state has proposed that even if it is assumed that the accusation of Singh was made by people “ducks thrown into” him, or by those who have ax to grind, it cannot be by reason to investigate them.
Allegations.
The High Court said it did not learn more in the problem of facts.
It survives in matters in Amito service issues, which is a “wide amplitude”, only the court, as the first instance court, empowered to study.