Lokayukta; Jagdish Narain Shukla Vs. State of U.P. [Supreme Court of India, 26-09-2016]

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Vigilance Investigation – Public Interest Litigation praying for implementation of the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(T.S.Thakur, CJI) (A.M.Khanwilkar) JJ.

26th September 2016

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

i) 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.

ii) 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.

iii) 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.

iv) 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: