advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, September 29, 2016

The appellant had filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation praying for implementation of the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta Uttar Pradesh, dated 22nd February, 2012 = As aforesaid, the relief in the writ petition was limited to directing the Competent Authority to act upon the recommendations made by the Lokayukta. That relief has worked out in view of the direction issued by the Competent Authority to investigate/enquire into the factual matrix noticed in Lokayukta’s report. Further, the law enforcement agencies have moved into action and have collected information and material including with reference to the representations and affidavits received in the course of the said investigation/enquiry. We may, therefore, accede to the request of the law enforcement agencies to give them some more time to complete the investigation/enquiries in relation to the acts of commission and omission of respondent nos.5 and 6 or any other person(s) privy thereto. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matters under investigation/enquiry or the defence that may be available to respondent nos. 5 and 6 in any proceedings to be instituted against them in relation to the said matters.

                                                              (Reportable)

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9442/ 2016
                 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.31025/2013)


Jagdish Narain Shukla                              ….…..Appellant

                             Vs.

State of U.P. and Others.                                ……Respondents



                               J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.


Leave granted.


2.    This appeal challenges the decision of the Division Bench of the  High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dated  16th  July,  2012  in  Writ
Petition No.5744 of 2012.


3.    The appellant had  filed  writ  petition  under  Article  226  of  the
Constitution  of  India  as   Public   Interest   Litigation   praying   for
implementation of the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta Uttar  Pradesh,
dated 22nd February, 2012.  Following reliefs were prayed in the  said  writ
petition:

“Wherefore, it is most  respectfully  prayed  that  the  Hon’ble  Court  may
kindly be pleased, in the interest of justice, to

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of  mandamus,  directing  the
Opposite Parties Nos.1, 2 and 3 to implement the  recommendations/report  of
the Opposite Parties No.4 by getting the  issue  enquired  by  the  opposite
party Nos.7 and 8.

To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing  the
Opposite Parties No.7 and 8 to carry out an enquiry  into  the  misdeeds  of
the Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 6, in terms of  the  recommendation  of  the
Opposite Party No.4.

Issue any other writ, order or direction as may be deem fit  and  proper  by
this Hon’ble Court for giving just,  proper  and  effective  relief  to  the
petitioner.

Award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.





4.    The Lokayukta had submitted the said report under  the  Provisions  of
Section 12 (3) of the U.P. Lokayukta and  Up-Lokayuktas  Act,  1975  to  the
Competent Authority for taking necessary action. The report was the  outcome
of the complaint made by one Shri Jagdish Narain Shukla against  Smt.  Husna
Siddiqui, Member of Legislative Council and Sri  Naseemuddin  Siddiqui,  the
then Cabinet Minister in U.P., respondent no.6  and  5  respectively.  After
due enquiry the Lokayukta arrived at the following conclusion  as  noted  in
the aforesaid report:

      “On the basis of the prima facie evidences collected in the course  of
investigation, I reach the conclusion that the  delinquent  public  servants
had purchased land worth Rs.16,39,99,227/- (as per the market value)  for  a
meager price of Rs.46,32,600/- for their  Private  Society.  They  had  also
purchased agriculture land worth Rs. One crore situated in  Tindwari,  Dist.
Banda for a meager price of Rs.4,50,000/-. They purchased  Bungalow  no.B-3,
Timaiya  Road,  Cantonment,  Lucknow  worth  crores  of  rupees   for   just
Rs.50,00,000/-. They also purchased land worth Rs.3,60,00,000/-  in  village
Ladakapurwa, Dist. Banda for a meager  price  of  Rs.5,50,000/-  by  way  of
involving name of  Smt.  Upma  Gupta,  Smt.  Akrami  Begum  and  Smt.  Arshi
Siddiqui. The Delinquent public servant also purchased 1.2370  hectare  land
in the name of his son Sri Afzal Siddiqui  in  district  Jyotibaphule  Nagar
for setting up an industry A.Q. Frozen Food Pvt. Ltd. and  investigation  to
find out the exact cost of the land and the sources of income  for  purchase
the land is still in progress. It seems that the delinquent public  servants
have purchased all the aforementioned  assets  through  their  income  which
they earned from unknown sources because as per the  income  tax  return  of
both the delinquents, their taxable income  for  the  last  financial  years
comes to Rs.1,93,85,196/-.

69.   In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view  that
this task should be entrusted to a  specialized  investigating  agency  with
the following tasks:

      1.    The agency should  investigate  the  correctness/genuineness  of
the donations/funds given by persons  (whose  names  are  indicated  in  the
enclosed list provided by the delinquents) by cheque, by demand  drafts  and
by cash to the Registered  Society,  namely,  Q.F.  Shikshan  Sansthan,  49,
Shyam Nagar (Khurram Nagar) Lucknow and also to investigate the  sources  of
income of these individuals.

      2.    Q.  F.  Shikshan  Sansthan,  49,  Shyam  Nagar  (khurram  Nagar)
Lucknow had acquired immovable property in Tehsil Fatehpur, Dist.  Bararanki
through sale deeds. The agency should make inquiry  about  the  persons  who
sold land admeasuring 57 Bigha 18 Biswa 3 Biswansi to Smt.  Husna  Siddiqui,
Secretary, Q. F. Shikshan Sansthan.

      3.    All sale  deeds  of  Village  Nindora,  Tehsil  Fatehpur,  Dist.
Barabanki executed during the last five years should be  examined  in  order
to ascertain the fact as to who had sold their lands in village Nindora  and
what was the actual sale considerations involved in these  transactions  and
from where the funds had come to these individuals.

      4.    2.00  Hectare  land  in  Gata  no.3235  in  village  Ladkapurwa,
Pargana-Tehsil-Dist. Banda was purchased by Smt. Akrami Begum  wife  of  Sri
Jamiruddin Siddiqui, Smt. Arshi Siddiqui, daughter-in-law of Sri  Jamiruddin
Siddiqui, Smt. Arshi Siddiqui, daughter-in-law of  Sri  Jamiruddin  Siddiqui
and Smt. Upma Gupta wife of  Sri  Krishna  Chandra  Gupta,  an  Engineer  in
Nirman Nigam  in  the  year  2008.  The  investigating  agency  should  make
inquiries to  find  out  the  actual  sale  consideration  involved  in  the
aforesaid transaction and what was the source of income for payment  of  the
said cost.

      5.    Investigation should be conducted to  find  out  the  source  of
income which was used for  buying  the  entire  land  in  village  Bachhrau,
Tehsil Dhanaura, Dist. Jyotibaphule Nagar for setting up  A.Q.  Frozen  Food
Private Limited and raising building, etc. for the unit. It is  also  to  be
investigated as to who all  have  invested  their  money  in  the  land  and
building of the Unit and what is their source of income.

70.   In view of the foregoing analysis, I recommend that:-

      1.    The task  of  conducting  investigation  on  the  aforementioned
points should be entrusted to a Central Investigating  Agency  viz.  Central
Bureau of Investigation or the Enforcement Directorate  and  further  action
be taken in accordance with the result of the investigation.

      2.     Compliance report may be made available within one month.



                                             Sd/- illegible
                                        (Justice N.K. Mehrotra)
                                             Lok Ayukt, U.P.



On the  basis  of  the  above  conclusions,  the  Lokayukta  made  following
recommendations:
      70.   In view of the foregoing analysis, I recommend that:-

      1.    The task  of  conducting  investigation  on  the  aforementioned
points should be entrusted to a Central Investigating  Agency  viz.  Central
Bureau of Investigation or the Enforcement Directorate  and  further  action
be taken in accordance with the result of the investigation.

      2.     Compliance report may be made available within one month.



                                        Sd/- illegible
                                  (Justice N.K. Mehrotra)
                                        Lok Ayukt, U.P.



5.    The appellant verily believed that the  Competent  Authority  was  not
taking any steps to comply with the said recommendations of  the  Lokayukta,
for which, filed Writ Petition No.5744 of 2012 on 12th July,  2012  for  the
reliefs as reproduced above.


6.    The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held that  the  opinion
of the  Lokayukta  in  the  report  cannot  be  construed  to  be  final  or
conclusive as it was a fact finding enquiry and a detailed  enquiry  is  yet
to be made after affording opportunity of  hearing  to  the  person  against
whom complaint is made. It further observed that the High  Court  ought  not
to entertain petition for implementation of  recommendations/orders  of  the
Lokayukta  - as there is sufficient provision under the Act  itself  to  get
the same implemented. The Court also opined that there  was  no  element  of
public interest in the grievances made by the appellant.   On  that  finding
the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed  in  limine  on  16th
July, 2012.


7.    This decision has been challenged in the present petition filed  under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This Court issued  notice  to  the
respondents including the State Authorities. The  respondent  nos.  1  to  3
caused  to  file  affidavit  of  Yatindra  Kumar,  Under  Secretary  in  the
Vigilance Department of the State Government on 9th October,  2014.  Besides
raising preliminary objection, it has been mentioned in this affidavit  that
the Competent Authority has already taken a decision  to  enquire  into  the
aspects noted in the report of the Lokayukta  through  the  State  Vigilance
Establishment by way of an open vigilance  enquiry,  vide  Government  Order
dated 10th July, 2013.


8.     The  respondent  no.8  Directorate  of  Enforcement  caused  to  file
affidavit  of  Gurinder  Singh  Chawla,  Deputy  Director,  Directorate   of
Enforcement, Department  of  Revenue,  Ministry  of  Finance  Government  of
India, New Delhi dated  4th  March,  2015,  stating  that  the  Director  of
Enforcement has been mandated  to  investigate  contraventions  relating  to
Foreign Exchange Management Act,  1999  and  offences  of  money  laundering
under Prevention  of  Money  Laundering  Act,  2002.   Further,  it  had  no
authority whatsoever, to cause investigation in respect  of  offences  under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which ought  to  be  investigated  by
the appropriate enforcement agency, namely, Central Bureau of  Investigation
or by State police. This affidavit also mentions that  FIR  No.385  of  2013
dated 6th July, 2013 registered at  Police  Station  Kotwali  Nagar,  Banda,
U.P., for offences punishable under Section 13 (1)  (e)  read  with  Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent no.5  and
an ECIR/LKZO/03/2014 has been registered Lucknow Zonal  Office  for  offence
of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.  The
affidavit  also  mentions  that  an  action  of  provisional  attachment  of
proceeds of  crime  or  property  involved  in  money  laundering  shall  be
undertaken upon filing of a police report under Section 173 (2) of the  Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973, by the law enforcement agency. The other  action
taken for collection of Bank statements, income  tax  returns  and  property
details  of  respondent  no.5  and  his  relatives  by  the  respective  law
enforcement agency has been requisitioned and the document so  received  are
being scrutinized.


9.    Respondent no.7 C.B.I. has caused to file affidavit  of  Rajiv  Kumar,
Deputy S.P., CBI, ACB, Lucknow, in February, 2014.  It  is  stated  in  this
affidavit there is full-fledged State Vigilance Department under  the  State
Government to take follow up action on the basis of recommendations made  by
the Lokayukta. Moreover,  factual  matrix  of  the  present  case  does  not
involve any complexity  or  interstate  ramification  which  may  require  a
specialized  investigation  by  the  C.B.I.,  to  be  treated  as  rare  and
exceptional case.


10.   The respondent no.6 has filed reply affidavit on 23rd July,  2015,  to
oppose this appeal.  In that  reply  affidavit,  it  is  stated  that  on  a
complaint by one  Mr.  Ashish  Sagar  a  vigilance  investigation  has  been
commenced in respect of which FIR No.385/2013 has been registered  and  that
she has participated and fully cooperated in the said investigation.  It  is
prayed by the said respondent that the appeal does not  merit  interference.
 The  respondent  no.5  has  also  filed  an  affidavit  on  same  lines  as
respondent no.6 dated 23rd July, 2015.


11.   When this matter was heard on 22nd July, 2016 this  Court  passed  the
following order:

            “Heard.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel for  the  2  respondent-State  of
Uttar Pradesh, submits that taking cognizance of  the  report  submitted  by
the  Lokayukta,  the  State  Government  had   referred   the   matter   for
investigation by the State Vigilance establishment on 10th July,  2013.  The
progress made in that regard is however not immediately  known  to  him.  He
seeks time to take instructions if any action has  been  taken  pursuant  to
the reference made by the Government to  the  Vigilance  establishment.  Our
attention is also drawn to the affidavit filed by respondent no.5, para  (7)
whereof it is inter alia mentioned that  FIR  No.385/2013  dated  6th  July,
2013 has been registered at the Police Station Kotwali Nagar,  Banda,  U.P.,
by the Vigilance establishment on the complaint of one-Mr. Ashish Sagar.  It
is submitted that the  allegations  contained  in  the  said  complaint  are
similar to the ones made in the  report  submitted  by  the  Lokayukta.  Mr.
Mehrotra  does  not  have  any  instruction  as  to  the  progress  made  in
connection with the said FIR also. He may, therefore, file a  status  report
not only in regard to the reference made by  the  State  Government  to  the
Vigilance establishment, pursuant to  the  Lokayukta  report,  but  also  as
regards  the  progress  made  in  FIR  No.385/2013  by  the  police  station
concerned. Mr. Mehrotra also to take instruction whether any  FIR  has  been
registered against respondents No.5 and 6 in any other  police  station  and
if so the progress made in those FIRs. In addition, Mr. Mehrotra  will  take
instruction and state whether  the  State  Government  proposes  to  make  a
reference to the 3 enforcement directorate as recommended by  the  Lokayukta
in his report, in case such a  reference  is  not  already  made.  Mr.  P.K.
Mullick, learned counsel  for  the  Enforcement  Directorate,  submits  that
Enforcement Directorate has registered ECIR on the basis of FIR  No.385/2013
but  no  enquiry  has  been  instituted  nor  any  reference  made  to   the
Enforcement Directorate by the State Government pursuant to  the  report  of
the Lokayukta. Mr. Mehrotra shall do  the  needful  within  two  weeks  from
today. Post after two weeks.

12.   Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Under Secretary in  the  Vigilance
Department at Lucknow Sri Yatindra Kumar, has filed affidavit sworn  on  9th
August, 2016, disclosing the  progress  of  the  respective  case  initiated
against respondent nos.5 and 6. The said affidavit reads thus:
“3.   That, in respectful compliance of  the  said  order  dated  22.07.2016
passed by this Hon’ble Court, the  status  of  various  proceedings  against
respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the present petition, is as under:

Progress regarding reference to the State Vigilance Establishment

4.    That, in this regard it is stated that a complaint  was  filed  before
the Lokayukta Establishment Uttar Pradesh by Sri Jagdish  Narain  Shukla  of
Lucknow against Smt. Husna Siddiqui, Member of U.P. Legislative Council  and
Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, ex-Cabinet Minister of Uttar Pradesh,  in  respect
of which after conducting an enquiry,  the  Hon’ble  Lokayukta  vide  letter
dated 22.02.2012, submitted Report no.03-2012 to  the  Competent  Authority,
Government of U.P.

      After due consideration of the said report and recommendations of  the
Hon’ble Lokayukta, vide order dated  10.07.2013,  it  was  directed  by  the
State Government that open enquiry by conducted against the said Smt.  Husna
Siddiqui and Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui by the U.P.  Vigilance  Establishment,
following the said report by the Hon’ble Lokayukta.

      In compliance with the  said  order  dated  10.07.2013  by  the  State
Government,  whereby  open  enquiry  was  directed  to  be  conducted,   the
Vigilance Establishment completed the enquiry and report  was  submitted  to
the State Government vide letter dated 29.07.2015.
      In the meanwhile, various  representations/affidavits  were  submitted
to the State Government by Smt. Husna Siddiqui and  her  family  members  in
respect of said open enquiry on 04.08.2015, 6.8.2015, 17.8.2015,  18.8.2015,
19.8.2015,  20.8.2015,  21.8.2015,  28.8.2015,   4.9.2015,   10.9.2015   and
14.9.2015, wherein several important issues were  sought  to  be  raised  in
relation to the open enquiry.

      The open enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Establishment,  and
the representations/affidavits by Smt. Husna  Siddiqui  and  her  relations,
were  comprehensively  considered  by  the  State  Government,   and   after
comprehensive consideration,  after  taking  cognizance  of  all  the  facts
mentioned in the aforesaid representations/affidavits  in  relation  to  the
open  enquiry  conducted  by  the  Vigilance  Establishment,  it  was  found
justifiable to get a factual  report  in  regard  thereto,  after  carefully
examining/scrutinizing   the    documents    enclosed    with    the    said
representations/affidavits. In this view of the matter as  aforestated,  the
State Government vide D.O.  letter  no.  VIP/36/39-4-15-50H  (2)/2013  dated
26.2.2016, has directed the Vigilance  Establishment  to  submit  a  factual
report in regard thereto after enquiring into the matter in detail.


                        Current status of the enquiry

5.    That, it has been informed by the U.P.  Vigilance  Establishment  that
for the purpose of verification of documents in  the  enquiry,  the  revenue
records in the districts of Lucknow,  Barabanki,  Banda  and  Jyotiba  Phule
Nagar and records of related offices as well as records of different  banks,
and verification/examination of the  concerned  bank  accounts,  has  to  be
done. Moreover, the 11 representations and 8 affidavits (totaling 55  pages)
submitted by Smt. Husna Siddiqui and members  of  her  family,  as  well  as
documents enclosed with the said representations (approx. 1068 pages),  have
to be verified. Additionally, enquiry/statements  of  persons  giving  money
and other persons, has to be done, owing to  which  the  enquiry  is  taking
time. At the present time,  supplementary  enquiry  is  in  progress,  which
shall be completed at  the  earliest  and  report  submitted  to  the  State
Government.


Progress in F.I.R. no. 385/13 dt. 6.7.2013 at P.S. Kotwali, Banda

6.    In regard to above, the factual  position  is  that  a  complaint  was
filed against Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former Minister, Government of  U.P.
by  Sri  Ashish  Sagar  Dixit,  District   Banda,   before   the   Lokayukta
Establishment, Uttar Pradesh. Following  the  same,  the  Hon’ble  Lokayukta
after conducting his enquiry, submitted Report no.05-2012 vide letter  dated
24.8.2012 to the Competent Authority of the U.P. Government.

      After due consideration of the said  report  dated  24.8.2012  of  the
Hon’ble Lokayukta, the State Government vide order dated 4.10.2012  directed
the U.P.  Vigilance  Establishment  to  conduct  open  enquiry  against  Sri
Naseemuddin Siddiqui, in regard to recommendation no.1 of the report of  the
Hon’ble Lokayukta.

      In compliance  with  the  State  Government’s  order  dated  4.10.2012
directing an open enquiry, the Vigilance  Establishment  has  completed  the
said open enquiry and its report was submitted to the State Government  vide
letter dated 29.4.2013. On account of the  fact  that  the  expenditure  was
found more than income in the open enquiry, hence it was recommended that  a
criminal case be registered and the same investigated.

      After examination of the said open enquiry report,  in  terms  of  the
recommendation by the Vigilance Establishment,  the  State  Government  vide
order dated 2.7.2013 directed the U.P.  Vigilance  Establishment  to  get  a
case registered under section 13(1) (e) read with section (13)  (2)  of  the
Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  1988  and   the   same   investigated.   In
continuation  with  the  said  direction  of  the  State  Government   dated
2.7.2013, Case Crime no. 407/13 under section 13 (1) (e) read  with  section
13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on  6.7.2013  by
U.P. Vigilance Establishment, Allahabad Sector, at  P.S.  Kotwali,  District
banda,  against  Sri  Naseemuddin  Siddiqui,  the  chick  no.  of  which  as
385/2013. It is  stated  that  after  completion  of  investigation  in  the
aforestated Crime no.407/13, the Vigilance Establishment vide  letter  dated
29.7.2015 submitted its investigation report to the State Government.

      In the meanwhile, Sri Naseemuddin  Siddiqui  and  his  family  members
preferred several representations in relation to the said investigation,  on
31.7.2015, 6.8.2015, 14.8.2015, 17.8.2015, 18.8.2015, 19.8.2015,  20.8.2015,
21.8.2015, 28.8.2015, 4.9.2015, 10.9.2015, 14.9.2015 and 31.1.2016,  to  the
State Government, wherein several important issues were raised in regard  to
the investigation report.

      It is further stated that the investigation report  submitted  by  the
Vigilance Establishment, and  the  representations/affidavits  preferred  by
Sri  Naseemudin  Siddiqui  and  his  family  members,  were  comprehensively
examined by the State  Government,  and  after  due  consideration,  it  was
considered appropriate to get a factual  report  in  relation  to  the  said
investigation, in regard almost 14 representations and 8  affidavits  (total
80 pages) and its enclosures  (total  1371  pages)  submitted  on  different
dates by Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his family members.  It  was  directed
that factual  report  be  made  available  after  getting  examined  by  the
Vigilance Establishment, the fact  of  income  and  expenditure  from  valid
sources, by  the  State  Government  vide  D.O.  letter  no.VIP-3/39-4-16-50
N(2)/2012 TC dated 26.2.2016.


                       Current Status of Investigation

7.    That, it has been informed by the U.P.  Vigilance  Establishment  that
for the purpose of verification  of  documents  in  the  said  enquiry,  the
revenue records of District Lucknow,  Banda,  Gautambudh  Nagar,  Barabanki,
and records relating to the offices of various establishments,  as  well  as
verification/examination of records relating to different banks and  related
bank accounts in the concerned districts, have to be examined and  verified.
Moreover, a total of 14 representations and 8 affidavits  (total  80  pages)
submitted by Sri naseemuddin Siddiqui and his  family  members  as  well  as
documents enclosed  therewith  (total  1371  pages)  have  to  be  verified.
Additionally, the enquiry/statements of persons who had given money as  well
as statements of other concerned persons have to be recorded, due  to  which
the enquiry is taking time. Presently, supplementary investigation is  being
conducted, which is likely to be completed shortly and report  submitted  to
the State Government.


                Other proceedings against respondent nos.5&6

8.    That, it has been intimated by the  Vigilance  Establishment  that  in
compliance with the State Government’s order dated  30.11.2013  relating  to
investigation  of   corruption   and   irregularities   committed   in   the
construction of monuments and gardens, as also supply of sand stone  in  the
cities of Lucknow and Noida between 2007  to  2011,  Crime  No.1/2014  under
Sections 409/120-B PIC and Section  13(1)(e)  read  with  Section  13(2)  of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been  registered  by  the  Vigilance
Establishment at P.S. Gomti Nagar Lucknow, wherein Sri Naseemuddin  Siddiqui
is also an accused person.  Considerable  progress  has  been  made  in  the
investigation and spot inspection  of  5  construction  sites  (1.  Ambedkar
Samajik Parivartan Sthal, 2. Eco Park, 5. Noida Ambedkar  Park)  and  mining
sites,  have  already  been  conducted.  Opinions  of  various  experts   is
remaining. Statements  of  a  total  of  170  witnesses  have  already  been
recorded  in  the  investigation,  and  most  of  the  documents  have  been
collected. The work relating to collection of the  remaining  documents  and
evidence is being done at a fast speed. The  investigation  in  question  is
progressing speedily, which shall be completed at the  earliest  and  report
submitted to the State Government.

IV.   Proceedings before Enforcement directorate
9.    That, in this regard the Vigilance  Establishment  has  informed  that
with reference to letter dated 29.1.2014  by  the  Enforcement  directorate,
Government of India, requiring information and documents,  by  letter  dated
31.1.2014, a copy of the First Information Report  (Case  Crime  no.407/13),
has been sent to the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government  of
India, 16 Ashok Marg, Lucknow.”

13.   Today, when the matter was  taken  up  for  further  hearing,  counsel
appearing for the State Authorities as well  as  Union  of  India  submitted
that the enquiries against respondent  nos.5  and  6  are  in  progress  and
effort is being made to conclude the same in right earnest. A chart  of  the
status of those enquiries against respondent no.5 and 6 has  been  furnished
during the hearing, which reads thus:
               Summary of Status Report in SLP (C) No.31025/13
|             |Complaint of JN      |Complaint of     |FIR regarding       |
|             |Shukla               |Ashish Sagar     |Parks/Monuments     |
|             |                     |Dixit            |                    |
|Lokayukta    |Report no.03-2012    |Report no.05-2012|Government Order on |
|Establishment|dt.22.2.2012 against |dt. 24.8.2012    |30.11.2013 for      |
|             |Smt. Husna & Sri     |against Sri      |registration of FIR |
|             |Naseemuddin Siddiqui |Naseemuddin      |(Sri Naseemuddin    |
|             |                     |Siddiqui         |Siddiqui is         |
|             |                     |                 |co-accused)         |
|State        |Open Enquiry on      |Open Enquiry on  |Crime no.1/2014     |
|Vigilance    |10.7.2013            |4.10.2012        |registered in P.S.  |
|Establishment|Report to State      |Report to State  |Gomtinagar, Lucknow |
|             |Government on        |Government on    |under s. 409/120-B  |
|             |29.7.2015            |29.4.2013        |IPC & 13(1)(e) and  |
|             |                     |State Government |13(2) PC Act        |
|             |                     |vide order dated |(corruption &       |
|             |                     |2.7.2013 directed|irregularities in   |
|             |                     |FIR under        |supply of sand stone|
|             |                     |s.13(1)(e) &13(2)|and construction of |
|             |                     |PC Act,          |monuments & parks in|
|             |                     |registered on    |Lucknow/Noida       |
|             |                     |6.7.2013 in P.S. |                    |
|             |                     |Kotwali District |(page 131)          |
|             |                     |Banda (CC 407/13)|                    |
|             |                     |FIR copy given to|                    |
|             |                     |ED on 31.1.2014  |                    |
|Representatio|11 representations   |14               |Considerable        |
|ns &         |between 4.8.2015 to  |representations  |progress made (page |
|Affidavits   |14.9.2015            |between 31.7.2015|132)                |
|             |8 affidavits         |to 31.1.2016     |- Five construction |
|             |                     |8 affidavits     |sites inspected     |
|             |                     |                 |- 170 witnesses     |
|             |                     |                 |examined            |
|             |                     |                 |- Most documents    |
|             |                     |                 |collected           |
|Supplementary|Order for factual    |Order for factual|                    |
|Enquiry      |report on 26.2.2016  |report on        |                    |
|(Factual     |Current status of    |26.2.2016        |                    |
|Report)      |enquiry (page 127)   |Current status of|                    |
|             |                     |investigation    |                    |
|             |                     |(page130)        |                    |


14.   It is submitted by the  counsel  appearing  for  the  concerned  State
agencies  that  having  regarding  to  the  voluminous  documents  and  more
particularly the need to verify the  correctness  of  the  information  made
available during the investigation/enquiry, it would take some more time  to
complete the investigation/enquiry in  the  respective  cases.  The  counsel
appearing for the appellant,  however,  submits  that  the  law  enforcement
agencies  have  not  done  enough  and  are  responsible  for  delaying  the
investigation/enquiry for reasons  best  known  to  them,  which  inevitably
would benefit respondent nos. 5 and  6.   The  counsel  for  the  respondent
nos.5 and 6 has refuted this veiled attack on  respondent  nos.5  and  6  of
being  responsible  for  delay  in  the  enquiry.   He  submits  that  these
respondents have extended full cooperation to the  concerned  agencies  thus
far and would continue to do so even in future. It is unnecessary for us  to
dilate on this aspect.


15.   As  aforesaid,  the  relief  in  the  writ  petition  was  limited  to
directing the Competent Authority to act upon the  recommendations  made  by
the Lokayukta. That relief has worked out in view of  the  direction  issued
by the Competent Authority to investigate/enquire into  the  factual  matrix
noticed in Lokayukta’s report. Further, the law  enforcement  agencies  have
moved into action and have  collected  information  and  material  including
with reference to the representations and affidavits received in the  course
of the said investigation/enquiry. We may, therefore, accede to the  request
of the law enforcement agencies to give them some more time to complete  the
investigation/enquiries in relation to the acts of commission  and  omission
of respondent nos.5 and 6 or any other person(s) privy thereto.


16.   Considering the fact that the law enforcement agencies  are  on  their
job for quite sometime, we express a sanguine hope that they would  complete
the investigation/enquiry at the earliest and  not  later  than  six  months
from today and take the same to its logical end in accordance with law.


17.   We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the  merits
of the matters under  investigation/enquiry  or  the  defence  that  may  be
available to respondent nos. 5 and 6 in any  proceedings  to  be  instituted
against them in relation to the said matters.


18.   This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.


                                             …………………………..CJI
                                             (T.S.Thakur)


                                                              …………………………….J.
                                             (A.M.Khanwilkar)



New Delhi,
26th                             September                              2016



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.