Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4177 OF 2013
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO.11563 OF 2011)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.10503 (M/B) of 2009, dated
03.12.2010.
JUDGMENT
3. This Court, while entertaining the appeal, by its
Order dated 18.04.2011, had passed the following interim order.
The same reads as under :
“.....Ad-interim stay of the direction
No.(iii) in para 155 and the second part of
direction No.(viii) in para 155 requiring the
reports to be submitted to the High Court in
regard to every investigation at interval of two
months.
In regard to direction No.(iv) in para
155 of the impugned order, the period three
months mentioned therein shall be substituted by
the period 'six months'....”
Page 1
2
4. The respondents have entered their appearance through
their respective counsel.
5. The Joint Secretary, Food & Civil Supply, Government
of Uttar Pradesh has filed an affidavit on behalf of the
appellants herein in compliance of the orders passed by this
Court dated 26.04.2013. In the affidavit, it is stated that the
investigating agency had requested for grant of sanction under
the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and also
under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and the State Government has sanctioned prosecution in the case
of 18 officials out of 23 persons against whom the sanction was
sought by the investigating agency. In the affidavit it is also
stated that as against the remaining 5 persons, the State
Government will pass appropriate orders sanctioning prosecution
as requested by the investigating agency within four weeks' time
JUDGMENT
from today.
6. In view of the aforesaid undertaking by the State
Government in our opinion, nothing survives in this appeal for
our consideration and decision.
7. However, we make it clear that the question of
sanction raised by the State will be considered in an
appropriate case, if it is found necessary at a later date.
Page 2
3
8. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is
disposed of.
9. Order dated 15.03.2013 allowing the application(s)
for intervention/impleadment is recalled and the same are
rejected. However, we observe that the applicant(s) may file a
separate petition, if he so desires.
Ordered accordingly.
.....................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.....................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 01, 2013.
JUDGMENT
Page 3