1994 (3) TMI 381 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether it is permissible to withdraw the consent given by the State Government u/s 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
2. The effect of such withdrawal of consent on matters pending investigation on the date of withdrawal.
3. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
4. Allegations of political motivation and delay in filing the writ petition.

Summary:

1. Permissibility of Withdrawal of Consent u/s 6 of the Act:
The writ petition raised the question of whether the State Government can withdraw the consent given u/s 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which allows the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) to exercise powers and jurisdiction for investigating specified offenses in any area of the State. The petitioner contended that there is no provision in the Act empowering the State Government to withdraw the consent once given. The Court held that even if Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is applicable, an order revoking consent u/s 6 of the Act can only have prospective operation and would not affect matters where action had already been initiated.

2. Effect of Withdrawal of Consent on Pending Investigations:
The Court declared that the notification dated 7-1-1987, withdrawing the consent given by the Government of Sikkim, operates only prospectively. Therefore, the withdrawal does not apply to cases that were pending investigation on the date of issuance of the notification. The CBI was competent to complete the investigation in the cases registered against Respondent 4 and other persons and submit the report u/s 173 CrPC in the competent court.

3. Legislative Competence of Parliament:
The contention regarding the legislative competence of Parliament to enact Sections 5 and 6 of the Act was addressed by referencing the Constitution Bench decision in Advance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurudasmal, which held that members of a police force belonging to a Union Territory can have their powers and jurisdiction extended to another State with the consent of that State's Government.

4. Allegations of Political Motivation and Delay:
The Court dismissed the argument that the writ petition was politically motivated, noting that the allegations of corruption against a person holding the high public office of Chief Minister warranted judicial determination. The Court also found that the delay in filing the writ petition was justified due to the Central Government's efforts to persuade the Government of Sikkim to restore consent, which ultimately failed, leading to the filing of the petition in 1993.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and it was declared that the notification dated 7-1-1987, withdrawing the consent given by the Government of Sikkim, operates only prospectively and does not preclude the CBI from submitting the report in the competent court u/s 173 CrPC based on the investigation conducted in the specified cases. No order as to costs was made.