Full Judgment Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 13679 of 2009
DR. RAMESH NIRMAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Mehta with
Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Agrawal, Advocate
for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers
be allowed to see the order? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the order should be reported in the Digest? Yes
O R D E R
03.02.2011
nd
1. The facts of the case have been set out in an order dated 22 July
2010 passed by this Court which reads as under:
“1. This writ petition seeks a direction to the
Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Respondent No.
th
2) to honour a sanction order dated 4/5 July
2005 whereby financial assistance was
granted to the Petitioner for publication of
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 1 of 22
2000 copies of his book „Kaalijayee
Ujjayinee‟ which is a cultural history of the
city of Ujjain. The grant amount was Rs.
39,92,000/-.
2. The Petitioner has averred, on affidavit,
that the process emanated with a letter dated
th
14 August 2004 written by one Dr.
Mahaveer Adhikari, a senior journalist and a
litterateur to the Union Minister for Human
Resources Development (HRD)
recommending the grant of financial
assistance in respect of 5,000 copies of the
Petitioner‟s book. This was followed by a
letter written by the Prime Minister to the
th
Union Minister for HRD on 18 August 2004
recommending the grant of financial
assistance to the Petitioner for the above
work. A copy of the said letter has been
annexed with the petition at page 35
(Annexure P-II). According to the Petitioner,
th
there was a hand written note dated 18
August 2004 by one Shri Arun Kochar, an
Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Union
Minister for HRD on the above letter of the
Prime Minister.
3. Annexure P-III to the petition is a letter
th
dated 19 August 2004 under Diary No.
3731/D/C(1)/2004 addressed by the OSD
Shri Arun Kochar on his letterhead to Shri V.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 2 of 22
Kutumb Shastri, Vice Chancellor of
Respondent No. 2, stating that a letter has
been received from Dr. Mahaveer Adhikari
for grant of financial assistance for
publication of 5000 sets of the Petitioner‟s
book. He further stated that “in this regard
the Hon‟ble Minister has given the necessary
directions for sanctioning the grant of
financial assistance for the publication of
1000 sets through Maharshi Sandipani
Rashtriya Vedvidya Pratisthan, Ujjain and
2000 sets through Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
th
New Delhi.” The letter is signed on 18
th
August 2004 although the date on top is 19
August 2004.
4. As part of Annexure P-III there is an
th
another letter dated 19 August 2004 under
diary No. 3731/D/C/2004 written again by
Shri Kochar on his letter head to Professor
Omprakash Pandey, the Secretary of the
Maharshi Sandipni Rashtriya Vedvidya
Prastisthan, Ujjain again inter alia stating as
under :-
“In this regard the Hon‟ble Minister has
given the necessary directions for
sanctioning the grant of financial
assistance for the publication of 1000
sets through Maharshi Sandipani
Rashtriya Vedvidya Prastisthan, Ujjain
and 2000 sets through Rashtriya
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 3 of 22
Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi.”
th
Again this letter has been signed on 18
th
August 2004 although the date on top is 19
August 2004.
5. There is a handwritten note on both the
above letters stating “please keep with
th
direction” signed by Shri Kochar on 18
August 2004 itself. Counsel for the Petitioner
rd
states that this refers to a letter dated 23
January 1987 under F. No. 10-7/89-Skt. II
stated to have been emanated from the
Department of Education, HRD Ministry,
Government of India addressed to M/s. Nag
Publishers of Delhi regarding financial
assistance for the publication of “Sanskrit-
Hindi Kosh by Apte”. A copy of the
aforementioned letter is also part of Annexure
P-III.
6. According to the Petitioner, the said letter
rd
dated 23 January 1987 constituted a
precedent under which a grant was made by
the Ministry of HRD for publishing more than
1000 sets of the book „Sanskrit Hindi Kosh‟
by Apte. The said grant was bifurcated
between the Respondent No. 2 and the
institution at Ujjain. It is sought to be
contended by the Petitioner that on the basis
of the said precedent, in the Petitioner‟s case
also a recommendation was made that the
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 4 of 22
grant be split into two parts whereby 2000
copies would be published through
Respondent No. 2 and 1000 copies through
the Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Vedvidya
Pratisthan, Ujjain. The Petitioner has also
st
annexed a copy of letter dated 21 December
1987 again in file No. 10-7/86-Skt.II in
connection with the same grant in respect of
the „Sanskrit Hindi Kosh‟ by V.S. Apte. The
Petitioner has enclosed the copy of a letter
rd
dated 23 August (Diary No. 671-
C/MHRD/2004) written by the Union HRD
Minister to Mr. Adhikari confirming that he
had directed the two institutions to sanction
the grants to the Petitioner.
7. The grant in favour of the Petitioner was
th
formally made on 5 July 2005 by
Respondent No. 2. This was followed by
th
another communication to him on 28 July
2005. The Petitioner did not receive the grant
in respect of the 2000 copies of his book from
Respondent No. 2 which led to Dr. Adhikari
and the Petitioner making inquiries with
th
Respondent No. 2. A letter dated 15
December 2005 was sent to Dr. Adhikari by
Respondent No. 2 explaining that since the
publication had already received a grant from
the institution at Ujjain, no further grant could
be given.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 5 of 22
th
8. On 5 November 2007 the Union Minister
for HRD wrote a lengthy note in Hindi under
Diary No. 7625/R/HRM/MHRD/2007 to the
Joint Secretary (Languages) of the Education
Department referring to his earlier letters and
directing that the grant to the Petitioner in
respect of the 2000 sets published through
Respondent No. 2 should be released.
According to the Petitioner this was followed
th
by a letter dated 27 July 2008 addressed by
the Union Minister for HRD under Diary No.
4244/R/HRM/MHRD/2008 again addressed
to Joint Secretary (Languages), Education
th
Department. A third letter dated 26
December 2008 was written by the Union
Minister for HRD under diary No.
5225/R/HRM/MHRD/2008, again referring to
earlier letters and directing the Joint Secretary
(Languages) to release payment of the
Petitioner‟s pending bill for the grant. The
Petitioner has also enclosed another copy of
th
letter dated 8 March 2009 addressed by the
Prime Minister to the Union Minister for
HRD forwarding the Petitioner‟s request for
release of payment of the grant which had
been withheld.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has
during the course of arguments produced a
th
photocopies of the original letter dated 18
August 2004 of the Prime Minister, the letter
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 6 of 22
th
dated 19 August, 2004 written by Shri Arun
Kochar to Shri V. Kutumb Shastri, the letter
of the same date written by Shri Kochar to
Prof. Omprakash Pandey, the letters dated
th st
28 June 1987 and 21 December 1987
pertaining to the grant for publication of
„Sanskrit Hindi Kosh‟ by Apte, the photocopy
rd
of the letter dated 23 August 2004 from the
Union HRD Minister to Shri Adhikari, the
photocopies of the original notes in Hindi by
th
the Union HRD Minister dated 5 November
th th
2007, 27 July 2008 and 26 December 2008
addressed to the Joint Secretary (Languages)
in the Education Department and the letter
th
dated 8 March 2009 from the Prime Minister
to the Union Minister for HRD.
th
10. On 28 April 2010, this Court had
required the complete record of the HRD
Ministry to be produced before the Court. It
was directed that “in particular, the records
which contain the originals of the letters,
copies of which are enclosed with this petition
at Annexure P-3 collectively should be
produced.” The above direction became
necessary because in the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, which is
supported by the affidavit of Shri V.K.
Aggarwal, Under Secretary, although it was
stated that the reply was based on the records
of the Respondent No. 1, there was no
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 7 of 22
parawise reply to the writ petition and,
therefore, no traverse of the various
paragraphs, and in particular para No. 4 of the
writ petition, where the above documents
were described and enclosed by the Petitioner.
11. On a perusal of the record produced by
the Respondent No. 1 before this Court, and
upon learned counsel for Respondent No.
perusing it with the assistance of Mr. Mange
Ram and Ms. Alka, Section Officers, Ministry
of HRD, it was found that barring the
th
photocopy of the note in Hindi dated 5
November 2007 of the Union HRD Minister,
none of the documents referred to in para 9
above form part of the record. The first
document which is on record is a letter dated
th
10 September, 2004 written by Dr. Adhikari
to the Ministry of HRD. Then there is a
forwarding note of the Union Minister
addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the
th
institution at Ujjain on 16 September 2004.
The first noting on the notings part of the file
is by Shri Prem Narain Saxena, Under
th
Secretary (Sanskrit) on 7 October, 2004.
Interestingly Respondent No. 2 does not deny
th
receipt of the letter dated 18 August 2004 of
Shri Kochar. It however denies the letter
rd
dated 23 January 1987 pertaining to the
grant in respect of the Sanskrit-Hindi Kosh by
Apte. It appears now pursuant to a vigilance
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 8 of 22
inquiry, disciplinary action has been
recommended against Dr. Prakash Pandey,
Assistant Director (R&P), who issued the
th
sanction letter dated 5 July 2005, copy of
which is at page No. 61 of the writ petition
and Mr. Satish Kumar, Joint Director
(Project) of the National Book Trust.
12. It is a matter of concern that documents
with diary nos. supposed to have emanated
from the offices of the Prime Minister and
Union HRD Minister concerning the subject
matter, which have been relied upon by the
Petitioner and copies of which are enclosed
with the petition, do not form part of the
record of the Ministry of HRD.
13. In response to a query as to why parawise
reply to the writ petition was not given,
learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 states
that there was a vigilance inquiry ordered into
the matter and, therefore, the record was not
available at the time when the reply was
prepared. This Court fails to appreciate how a
senior officer of Respondent No. 1 could file
an affidavit in support of the reply stating that
it is based on the records of the Ministry of
HRD, when plainly such record was not
available at that time.
14. This is a matter in which a further
explanation is required from the Ministry of
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 9 of 22
HRD. This Court would like to have a
comprehensive investigation undertaken by
the Ministry of HRD in this matter. This
Court directs that an affidavit be filed by a
senior officer, not less than the rank of
Additional Secretary of HRD Ministry within
four weeks giving para wise response to the
writ petition and explaining how the above
documents described in para 9 are not part of
the record.
15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states
that he will provide a complete set of the
photocopies of the originals of the letters in
question to the counsel for the Respondent
No. 1. The photocopies of the documents
produced by the counsel for the Petitioner
today in Court will be kept in a sealed cover
by the Registry.
th
16. List on 1 September, 2010. The original
record will be produced by the Ministry of
HRD on the next date of hearing.
17. Order dasti.”
2. Pursuant to the above order, a detailed affidavit has been filed on
th
7 September 2010 by Mr. Ashok Thakur, Additional Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 10 of 22
Development (HRD). The facts that emerge from the said affidavit
are as under:
A. The Prime Minister‟s Office (PMO) has denied that the letter
th
dated 18 August 2004 (annexed as Annexure P2 to the writ
th
petition) and the letter dated 8 March 2009 (annexed as
Annexure P26 to the writ petition) were issued from that office.
th
The letter dated 27 August 2010 from the PMO states that a
detailed verification and search was conducted in that office and
that “there is no record of any such letters having been issued
by this office.”
B. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has copies of the above letters
allegedly addressed by the Prime Minister to the Union Minister
for HRD, and the letters were not marked to the Petitioner in the
official course of business, it indicates that the Petitioner “has
tried to deceive the Government by forging letters and
manipulating facts thereby misleading even the Hon‟ble High
Court for his ulterior motive”.
C. A detailed noting was made on the file by the Director
th
(Languages) on 14 March 2006 in response to the letter
received by the HRD Ministry from Dr. Mahaveer Adhikari
about the non-release of funds to the Petitioner. The said note
stated:
“4. Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda
Vidya Prathisthan (MSRVVP), Ujjain (HRM
Note dated 21.5.2005) as well as Rashtriya
Sanskrit Sansthan (RSkS) (HRM Note dated
12.6.2005) were asked to explore the
possibility of providing financial assistance
for the publication of the main book as well as
the auxiliary books.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 11 of 22
5. It is seen from the files of these
organizations that simultaneous process
started at both the places for publication of
the book(s). The interesting fact is that the
writer, Shri Ramesh Nirmal has projected
different amounts for publishing 2000 copies
of the books to the 2 institutions. While the
original proposal sent to MSRVVP in
September 2004 is for Rs.35 lakhs in the
proforma submitted to RSkS in May 2005, the
amount has been jacked up to Rs.45 lakhs.
He has also not revealed the fact that he had
already applied for and was in the process of
receiving finds from MSRVVP for the
publication of the same book.
6. Both organizations got the book
evaluated by NBT. Surprisingly, NBT has
given two different figures – Rs.31,42,999/-
for MSRVVP in May ‟05 and Rs.49,90,000/-
to RSkS in July ‟05 – a difference of
whopping 18 lakhs. Based on the evaluation
done in May 2005 by NBT, an amount of
Rs.31,42,199/- was released by the MSRVVP,
Ujjain in August 2005 for publication of 2000
copies of the 3 volumes of the main book as
well as eleven auxiliary books, with the
approval of HRM. 100 sets (14 x 100 = 1400
copies) of both the main book and the
auxiliary books have been provided to
MSRVVP, Ujjain.
7. In RSkS, the GIAC Meeting decided in
June ‟05, to fund 80% of the cost of
publication of the book, coming to
Rs.39,92,000/-. However, GIAC
recommended that Ministry‟s approval be
taken. But the AD (Publications) issued the
sanction order in July ‟05 without obtaining
the Ministry‟s approval as desired by GIAC.
The sanction order signed by one Dr. Prakash
Pandey also has over writing and insertions.
8. When the Ministry came to know,
RSkS was asked to explain. This resulted in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 12 of 22
the release of the amount being stopped –
although the sanction was issued in July ‟05,
no money was actually released by RSkS. The
matter was also brought to the notice of HRM
vide noting at p-12/ante.
9. Since then, Shri Mahaveer Adhikari
and Sri Ramesh Nirmal have been repeatedly
writing that RSkS, New Delhi, may also be
asked to release the promised grant for
publication of the 3 volumes of the book as
well as eleven auxiliary books. He is taking
recourse to the fact that HRM had written to
both MSRVVP and RSkS to consider
supporting the project.
10. It is clear in HRM‟s note of 12.6.05 (p-
c/29) that the funds are for publication of
2000 copies of the main books and auxiliary
books, which, by 3.6.2005, had already been
sanctioned by MSRVVP. In fact, HRM‟s
letter to Sri Mahavir Adhikari, written in
August 2005 (p-35/cor) clearly states that the
support will be shared by the two
organizations-there was never any intention of
multiplying the funds. (In any case, even if
RSkS had to provide funds, it would have
amounted to a reprint of the books, the cost of
which would then be halved and definitely not
more than the cost of the original print.)
11. The crux of the matter is the number of
copies finally printed. US (Skt) and Dy.
Director RSkS who visited the printing press
based in NOIDA, on 28.2.2006, have found
that only 2000 copies were printed and the
printer has no orders for a reprint. (p-47/cor).
12. From the facts available in the files of
the Ministry, MSRVVP and RSkS, a table has
been prepared, showing the chain of events,
(placed below, flagged). It is very clear that
the intention of the writer/ publisher from the
beginning is not entirely above board. He has
projected different amounts to different
organizations and deliberately hidden facts.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 13 of 22
As only 2000 copies appear to have been
printed, for which funds have already been
released by MSRVVP, his insistence on being
paid again by RSkS, quoting an expenditure
of Rs.40 lakhs (producing only a publishers
bill) is only to defraud the Government of
funds running into lakhs of rupees.
13. File is submitted for further orders
please. It may perhaps be desirable to obtain
legal opinion from the Min of Law/ASG on
whether any legal action can be initiated in
the matter.”
D. Thereafter the file went to the Joint Secretary (Languages)
who, after discussing the matter with the Additional Secretary,
recommended the following actions:
“i) Shri Ramesh Nirmal should be given a
formal reply from the Language Division
regarding the refusal by Rashtriya Sanskrit
Sansthan [RSkS] to release the grant.
Although a reply has been sent by RSkS,
since the letter is addressed to HRM and
Education Secretary, it would be appropriate
to send a reply from the Ministry as well.
ii) Action should be initiated against the
official in RSkS, Dr. Prakash Pandey,
Assistant Director [Res & Pub] who issued
the sanction order dated 28.7.2005 in favour
of Shri Ramesh Nirmal of „Anvitee
Prakashan‟ for release of funds without
obtaining the prior approval of the Ministry,
in spite of a clear direction of the GIAC of the
RSkS, to obtain prior approval of the
Ministry.
iii) Action should be initiated against the
official in NBT, Shri Satish Kumar [Jt.
Director/Projection] who has evaluated the
same book giving two different figures on
each evaluation, one in May, 2005 and the
other in July, 2005 – the difference in the two
estimates being as high as Rs.18 lakhs. It is
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 14 of 22
Shri Satish Kumar who has signed both the
letters, vetting the cost estimate for the 3
volumes and 11 auxiliary books.
iv) A reference be made to Ministry of
Law to ascertain whether any mensrea of the
author and publisher for committing of
offence(s) under Section 420 [cheating], 120-
A [Criminal Conspiracy] of the IPC and
misrepresentation of facts etc. gets established
in this case.”
E. The Union HRD Minister accepted the recommendations at
nd
(i) to (iii) above on 2 May 2006 and the sanction letter issued
by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan („RSkS‟) was cancelled.
F. M/s. Nag Publishers have clarified to the HRD Ministry by
th
their letter dated 13 August 2010 that the photocopies of the
rd st
letters dated 23 January 1987 and 21 December 1987 as
produced by the Petitioner [at Annexure P3 (collectively) pages
39 to 42 of the paper book] are “fake documents of original
letters”. They have provided the HRD Ministry with the copies
of the originals of those letters, as received by them from the
HRD Ministry. From this, it was clear that the copy of the letter
rd
dated 23 January 1987 as produced by the Petitioner was a
st
tampered version of its original. As regards the letter dated 21
December 1987 (copy annexed at Page 43 and 44 of the paper
book), it appeared that this letter has also been tampered. It is
stated that:
“The original letter mentions a limit of
Rs.3,29,700/- and approved expenditure as
Rs.60/- per copy, whereas the letter presented
before the Hon‟ble High Court shows the
figure as Rs.13,29,700/- and Rs.160/-
respectively. Number of copies to be
supplied to the Educational Institution is
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 15 of 22
mentioned as 100 whereas in the original
sanction letter it is 500. It is observed that the
whole text of the original letters dated
23.1.1987 and 21.12.1987 has been
rescripted/tampered with by the Petitioner to
further his ulterior motives and the
forged/tampered letters have been produced
by the Petitioner in the Hon‟ble High Court.”
G. The Petitioner had initially sought a grant of Rs.35 lakhs for
the publication of his books. After evaluating the costs in the
National Book Trust („NBT‟), an amount of Rs.31,42,199/- was
released to him through Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Ved
Vidya Pratishthan („MSRVVP‟), Ujjain for 2000 copies of three
volumes of the main book and 11 auxiliary books. While
examining the case, it was noticed by the HRD Ministry that the
th
sanction letter dated 28 July 2005 of the RSkS stated the cost
of production to be Rs.49,90,000/-(out of which Rs.39,92,000/-
was to be released towards the total cost of printing of the
book). The said letter which was issued by Shri Prakash
Pandey, the then Assistant Director (R & P), RSkS contained
overwriting in the number of copies to be printed and price per
th
set of books. NBT later clarified by a letter dated 13 May
th
2006 that the letter dated 10 July 2005 stating the cost of
production as Rs.49,90,000/- had not been issued by the NBT.
rd
H. The report dated 3 November 2009 of a fact-finding
inquiry conducted by the HRD Ministry found that an estimate
of Rs.31,42,199/- for publication of the Petitioner‟s book was
th
sent on 20 May 2005 by the NBT to MSRVVP.
“However, a second letter was sent on
24/5/2005, conveying the same estimate to the
Office of the Respondent-2 which has been
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 16 of 22
tampered with and there are overwriting and
instead of Rs.31,42,199/- an amount of
Rs.49.9 lakh is substituted. The letter
requesting for the estimate was forwarded
through the Petitioner in an open envelope
and the said letter contained over writing. On
the findings of the Fact Finding Inquiry
Disciplinary Proceedings have been initiated
against Shri Prakash Pandey, by Rashtriya
Sanskrit Sansthan.”
th
I. As regards the letter dated 10 January 2006 for release of
the grant of 2000 copies, it is submitted that:
“An inspection was conducted by the officers
of the Ministry and RSkS for verification of
the number of copies printed by the Publisher.
An inspection conducted by the then Under
Secretary (Skt.) and the then Deputy Director,
RSkS with the publisher, on 28.2.2006, it was
established that only 2000 copies each of the
main as well as the Auxiliary books were only
printed and they have not received any order
for reprint. This clearly indicates that for the
2000 copies printed, the Petitioner has
received the grant from MSRVVP for the
purpose.”
J. The Petitioner was conveyed the rejection of his request by
th th
the HRD Ministry by letters dated 15 December 2005 and 7
February 2006. A reply was also sent to the legal notice dated
th
18 May 2006. The writ petition was filed in December 2009
after a delay of more than three years. It is further stated that
the Petitioner‟s claim of having sent 1400 sets of books to the
RSkS is false and misleading. It is stated that only 100 sets of
14 books, i.e., 1400 copies had been provided.
K. The note at Annexure P22 to the writ petition, purporting to
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 17 of 22
th
be a note dated 5 November 2007 penned by the Union HRD
Minister could not be certified by the office of the then Minister
th
for want of records. Although the subsequent note dated 27
July 2008 of the Minister is acknowledged, it is stated that the
Minister was apprised of the rule position and was told of the
Ministry‟s inability to provide funds from two organizations for
the same purpose.
3. Counsel for the HRD Ministry today referred to certain notings
on the file which indicate that the present Minister of HRD was
contemplating referring the case to Central Bureau of Investigation
(„CBI‟) for the further investigations. He stated that the decision was
deferred due to the pendency of the present petition.
th
4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner on 15
January 2011. The Petitioner vehemently denies having filed false
and fabricated documents. The explanation now offered by the
th
Petitioner is that the letter dated 18 August 2004 of the Prime
th
Minister, the letter dated 18 August 2004 of the Union HRD
rd
Minister and the letter dated 23 January 1987 “were received along
rd
with letter dated 23 August 2004 (Annexure P4 to the writ petition)
written by the then Minister for HRD to Dr. Mahaveer Adhikari who
was espousing the cause of the Petitioner.” It is now claimed that the
rd
Petitioner is in possession of the original of the letter dated 23
August 2004. It is further stated that a photocopy of the Prime
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 18 of 22
th
Minister‟s letter dated 8 March 2009 along with a photocopy of the
th
letter dated 9 March 2009 written by the then HRD Minister to the
then Minister of State in the PMO “was handed over to the Petitioner
by the Additional Private Secretary to the then HRD Minister Mr. B.
D. Bhatt at the residence of the said Minister, i.e., 17, Akbar Road,
th
New Delhi between 10 and 12 in the morning of 12 March 2009.”
Annexed to this rejoinder affidavit as Annexure P-33 is the copy of
th
the said letter dated 9 March 2009 written by the then HRD
Minister to the Minister of State in the PMO making a reference to
th th
the letters dated 18 August 2004 and 8 March 2009 of the Prime
Minister. The Petitioner now claims that the note-sheets of the HRD
th th th
Minister dated 5 November 2007, 27 July 2008 and 26 December
2008 were received by the Petitioner by fax from the residence of the
then HRD Minister. The Petitioner maintains that what he said in his
petition is correct; that a total 3000 books were published, that the
Petitioner had to take a loan of Rs.35 lakhs from State Bank of
Indore and he has already paid Rs.17,26,127/- as interest and further
sum of Rs.39,75,096/- is outstanding.
5. On a careful consideration of the documents on record, the
pleadings and the submissions of counsel, this Court is of the view
that the Petitioner has hopelessly failed to make out any case for
grant of any of the reliefs prayed for in this petition. There was
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 19 of 22
sufficient material on record for the HRD Ministry to decide to
th
withdraw the sanction granted earlier to the Petitioner on 5 July
2005 by the RSkS. The orders passed by this Court as well as the
narration of the pleadings hereinbefore show that the Petitioner was
not really entitled to receive grant for the same book from the two
sources. This was contrary to the policy and practice of the HRD
rd st
Ministry. The two letters dated 23 January 1987 and 21 December
1987 that were relied upon to establish a precedent were found to be
tampered documents. The careful consideration of the factors is
th
evidenced by the detailed note dated 14 March 2006 of the Director
st
(Languages) which was forwarded along with the note dated 21
March 2006 of the Joint Secretary (Languages). The action proposed
at paras (i) to (iii) of the latter note was approved by the then HRD
Minister and the sanction order was cancelled. This Court is
th
satisfied that the impugned communications dated 15 May 2006
nd
and 2 February 2008 of the HRD Ministry cancelling the sanction
th
order dated 4/5 July 2005 of the RSkS suffer from no legal
infirmity.
6. However, the present petition raises a serious issue concerning the
production of documents by the Petitioner which are shown not to
th
exist on the official record. The letters dated 18 August 2004 and
th
8 March 2009 purportedly written by the Prime Minister to a
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 20 of 22
Cabinet colleague, viz., the Union HRD Minister have been verified
by the PMO as not having been issued by the PMO. The Union HRD
th
Minister‟s note dated 5 November 2007 could not be verified from
rd
the official record. The copies of the letters dated 23 January 1987
st
and 21 December 1987 annexed by the Petitioner with the writ
petition have been shown to be tampered versions of the originals.
An inquiry ordered by the HRD Ministry during the pendency of
these proceedings has shown the conduct of the Petitioner in
pursuing his claim was not bonafide. The counter affidavit filed on
th
7 September 2010 by the Additional Secretary in the HRD Ministry
categorically states that the above documents have been fabricated.
7. This Court is satisfied prima facie that offences under Sections
191, 192 and 196 IPC punishable under Section 193 IPC have been
committed by the Petitioner in relation to these proceedings. In terms
of Section 340(1) Cr PC read with Section 195 (1) (b) (i), this Court
is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an
inquiry should be made into the above offences for which a written
complaint should be made to the appropriate Metropolitan
Magistrate against the Petitioner. The Registrar General is hereby
directed to draw up and make a complaint in the above terms and
send it to the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate within four weeks.
The said complaint will be accompanied by a complete certified
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 21 of 22
copy of the entire file, and the sealed cover containing the documents
nd
placed therein pursuant to the order dated 22 July 2010 of this
Court. The above complaint and documents will be personally
delivered by a Special Messenger to the Metropolitan Magistrate
concerned and an appropriate acknowledgement obtained and kept in
the records.
8. In the event that the case is referred to the CBI by HRD Ministry,
the CBI will have liberty to apply to the Metropolitan Magistrate
concerned to obtain certified copies of any of the documents forming
part of the record, including those placed in the sealed cover. The
CBI will also have access to the original documents for the purpose
of their investigations.
9. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- which
shall be paid by the Petitioner to the HRD Ministry within a period
of four weeks.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
FEBRUARY 3 , 2011
ha
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 22 of 22
W.P.(C) 13679 of 2009
DR. RAMESH NIRMAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Mehta with
Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Agrawal, Advocate
for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers
be allowed to see the order? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the order should be reported in the Digest? Yes
O R D E R
03.02.2011
nd
1. The facts of the case have been set out in an order dated 22 July
2010 passed by this Court which reads as under:
“1. This writ petition seeks a direction to the
Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Respondent No.
th
2) to honour a sanction order dated 4/5 July
2005 whereby financial assistance was
granted to the Petitioner for publication of
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 1 of 22
2000 copies of his book „Kaalijayee
Ujjayinee‟ which is a cultural history of the
city of Ujjain. The grant amount was Rs.
39,92,000/-.
2. The Petitioner has averred, on affidavit,
that the process emanated with a letter dated
th
14 August 2004 written by one Dr.
Mahaveer Adhikari, a senior journalist and a
litterateur to the Union Minister for Human
Resources Development (HRD)
recommending the grant of financial
assistance in respect of 5,000 copies of the
Petitioner‟s book. This was followed by a
letter written by the Prime Minister to the
th
Union Minister for HRD on 18 August 2004
recommending the grant of financial
assistance to the Petitioner for the above
work. A copy of the said letter has been
annexed with the petition at page 35
(Annexure P-II). According to the Petitioner,
th
there was a hand written note dated 18
August 2004 by one Shri Arun Kochar, an
Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Union
Minister for HRD on the above letter of the
Prime Minister.
3. Annexure P-III to the petition is a letter
th
dated 19 August 2004 under Diary No.
3731/D/C(1)/2004 addressed by the OSD
Shri Arun Kochar on his letterhead to Shri V.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 2 of 22
Kutumb Shastri, Vice Chancellor of
Respondent No. 2, stating that a letter has
been received from Dr. Mahaveer Adhikari
for grant of financial assistance for
publication of 5000 sets of the Petitioner‟s
book. He further stated that “in this regard
the Hon‟ble Minister has given the necessary
directions for sanctioning the grant of
financial assistance for the publication of
1000 sets through Maharshi Sandipani
Rashtriya Vedvidya Pratisthan, Ujjain and
2000 sets through Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
th
New Delhi.” The letter is signed on 18
th
August 2004 although the date on top is 19
August 2004.
4. As part of Annexure P-III there is an
th
another letter dated 19 August 2004 under
diary No. 3731/D/C/2004 written again by
Shri Kochar on his letter head to Professor
Omprakash Pandey, the Secretary of the
Maharshi Sandipni Rashtriya Vedvidya
Prastisthan, Ujjain again inter alia stating as
under :-
“In this regard the Hon‟ble Minister has
given the necessary directions for
sanctioning the grant of financial
assistance for the publication of 1000
sets through Maharshi Sandipani
Rashtriya Vedvidya Prastisthan, Ujjain
and 2000 sets through Rashtriya
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 3 of 22
Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi.”
th
Again this letter has been signed on 18
th
August 2004 although the date on top is 19
August 2004.
5. There is a handwritten note on both the
above letters stating “please keep with
th
direction” signed by Shri Kochar on 18
August 2004 itself. Counsel for the Petitioner
rd
states that this refers to a letter dated 23
January 1987 under F. No. 10-7/89-Skt. II
stated to have been emanated from the
Department of Education, HRD Ministry,
Government of India addressed to M/s. Nag
Publishers of Delhi regarding financial
assistance for the publication of “Sanskrit-
Hindi Kosh by Apte”. A copy of the
aforementioned letter is also part of Annexure
P-III.
6. According to the Petitioner, the said letter
rd
dated 23 January 1987 constituted a
precedent under which a grant was made by
the Ministry of HRD for publishing more than
1000 sets of the book „Sanskrit Hindi Kosh‟
by Apte. The said grant was bifurcated
between the Respondent No. 2 and the
institution at Ujjain. It is sought to be
contended by the Petitioner that on the basis
of the said precedent, in the Petitioner‟s case
also a recommendation was made that the
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 4 of 22
grant be split into two parts whereby 2000
copies would be published through
Respondent No. 2 and 1000 copies through
the Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Vedvidya
Pratisthan, Ujjain. The Petitioner has also
st
annexed a copy of letter dated 21 December
1987 again in file No. 10-7/86-Skt.II in
connection with the same grant in respect of
the „Sanskrit Hindi Kosh‟ by V.S. Apte. The
Petitioner has enclosed the copy of a letter
rd
dated 23 August (Diary No. 671-
C/MHRD/2004) written by the Union HRD
Minister to Mr. Adhikari confirming that he
had directed the two institutions to sanction
the grants to the Petitioner.
7. The grant in favour of the Petitioner was
th
formally made on 5 July 2005 by
Respondent No. 2. This was followed by
th
another communication to him on 28 July
2005. The Petitioner did not receive the grant
in respect of the 2000 copies of his book from
Respondent No. 2 which led to Dr. Adhikari
and the Petitioner making inquiries with
th
Respondent No. 2. A letter dated 15
December 2005 was sent to Dr. Adhikari by
Respondent No. 2 explaining that since the
publication had already received a grant from
the institution at Ujjain, no further grant could
be given.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 5 of 22
th
8. On 5 November 2007 the Union Minister
for HRD wrote a lengthy note in Hindi under
Diary No. 7625/R/HRM/MHRD/2007 to the
Joint Secretary (Languages) of the Education
Department referring to his earlier letters and
directing that the grant to the Petitioner in
respect of the 2000 sets published through
Respondent No. 2 should be released.
According to the Petitioner this was followed
th
by a letter dated 27 July 2008 addressed by
the Union Minister for HRD under Diary No.
4244/R/HRM/MHRD/2008 again addressed
to Joint Secretary (Languages), Education
th
Department. A third letter dated 26
December 2008 was written by the Union
Minister for HRD under diary No.
5225/R/HRM/MHRD/2008, again referring to
earlier letters and directing the Joint Secretary
(Languages) to release payment of the
Petitioner‟s pending bill for the grant. The
Petitioner has also enclosed another copy of
th
letter dated 8 March 2009 addressed by the
Prime Minister to the Union Minister for
HRD forwarding the Petitioner‟s request for
release of payment of the grant which had
been withheld.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has
during the course of arguments produced a
th
photocopies of the original letter dated 18
August 2004 of the Prime Minister, the letter
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 6 of 22
th
dated 19 August, 2004 written by Shri Arun
Kochar to Shri V. Kutumb Shastri, the letter
of the same date written by Shri Kochar to
Prof. Omprakash Pandey, the letters dated
th st
28 June 1987 and 21 December 1987
pertaining to the grant for publication of
„Sanskrit Hindi Kosh‟ by Apte, the photocopy
rd
of the letter dated 23 August 2004 from the
Union HRD Minister to Shri Adhikari, the
photocopies of the original notes in Hindi by
th
the Union HRD Minister dated 5 November
th th
2007, 27 July 2008 and 26 December 2008
addressed to the Joint Secretary (Languages)
in the Education Department and the letter
th
dated 8 March 2009 from the Prime Minister
to the Union Minister for HRD.
th
10. On 28 April 2010, this Court had
required the complete record of the HRD
Ministry to be produced before the Court. It
was directed that “in particular, the records
which contain the originals of the letters,
copies of which are enclosed with this petition
at Annexure P-3 collectively should be
produced.” The above direction became
necessary because in the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, which is
supported by the affidavit of Shri V.K.
Aggarwal, Under Secretary, although it was
stated that the reply was based on the records
of the Respondent No. 1, there was no
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 7 of 22
parawise reply to the writ petition and,
therefore, no traverse of the various
paragraphs, and in particular para No. 4 of the
writ petition, where the above documents
were described and enclosed by the Petitioner.
11. On a perusal of the record produced by
the Respondent No. 1 before this Court, and
upon learned counsel for Respondent No.
perusing it with the assistance of Mr. Mange
Ram and Ms. Alka, Section Officers, Ministry
of HRD, it was found that barring the
th
photocopy of the note in Hindi dated 5
November 2007 of the Union HRD Minister,
none of the documents referred to in para 9
above form part of the record. The first
document which is on record is a letter dated
th
10 September, 2004 written by Dr. Adhikari
to the Ministry of HRD. Then there is a
forwarding note of the Union Minister
addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the
th
institution at Ujjain on 16 September 2004.
The first noting on the notings part of the file
is by Shri Prem Narain Saxena, Under
th
Secretary (Sanskrit) on 7 October, 2004.
Interestingly Respondent No. 2 does not deny
th
receipt of the letter dated 18 August 2004 of
Shri Kochar. It however denies the letter
rd
dated 23 January 1987 pertaining to the
grant in respect of the Sanskrit-Hindi Kosh by
Apte. It appears now pursuant to a vigilance
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 8 of 22
inquiry, disciplinary action has been
recommended against Dr. Prakash Pandey,
Assistant Director (R&P), who issued the
th
sanction letter dated 5 July 2005, copy of
which is at page No. 61 of the writ petition
and Mr. Satish Kumar, Joint Director
(Project) of the National Book Trust.
12. It is a matter of concern that documents
with diary nos. supposed to have emanated
from the offices of the Prime Minister and
Union HRD Minister concerning the subject
matter, which have been relied upon by the
Petitioner and copies of which are enclosed
with the petition, do not form part of the
record of the Ministry of HRD.
13. In response to a query as to why parawise
reply to the writ petition was not given,
learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 states
that there was a vigilance inquiry ordered into
the matter and, therefore, the record was not
available at the time when the reply was
prepared. This Court fails to appreciate how a
senior officer of Respondent No. 1 could file
an affidavit in support of the reply stating that
it is based on the records of the Ministry of
HRD, when plainly such record was not
available at that time.
14. This is a matter in which a further
explanation is required from the Ministry of
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 9 of 22
HRD. This Court would like to have a
comprehensive investigation undertaken by
the Ministry of HRD in this matter. This
Court directs that an affidavit be filed by a
senior officer, not less than the rank of
Additional Secretary of HRD Ministry within
four weeks giving para wise response to the
writ petition and explaining how the above
documents described in para 9 are not part of
the record.
15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states
that he will provide a complete set of the
photocopies of the originals of the letters in
question to the counsel for the Respondent
No. 1. The photocopies of the documents
produced by the counsel for the Petitioner
today in Court will be kept in a sealed cover
by the Registry.
th
16. List on 1 September, 2010. The original
record will be produced by the Ministry of
HRD on the next date of hearing.
17. Order dasti.”
2. Pursuant to the above order, a detailed affidavit has been filed on
th
7 September 2010 by Mr. Ashok Thakur, Additional Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 10 of 22
Development (HRD). The facts that emerge from the said affidavit
are as under:
A. The Prime Minister‟s Office (PMO) has denied that the letter
th
dated 18 August 2004 (annexed as Annexure P2 to the writ
th
petition) and the letter dated 8 March 2009 (annexed as
Annexure P26 to the writ petition) were issued from that office.
th
The letter dated 27 August 2010 from the PMO states that a
detailed verification and search was conducted in that office and
that “there is no record of any such letters having been issued
by this office.”
B. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has copies of the above letters
allegedly addressed by the Prime Minister to the Union Minister
for HRD, and the letters were not marked to the Petitioner in the
official course of business, it indicates that the Petitioner “has
tried to deceive the Government by forging letters and
manipulating facts thereby misleading even the Hon‟ble High
Court for his ulterior motive”.
C. A detailed noting was made on the file by the Director
th
(Languages) on 14 March 2006 in response to the letter
received by the HRD Ministry from Dr. Mahaveer Adhikari
about the non-release of funds to the Petitioner. The said note
stated:
“4. Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda
Vidya Prathisthan (MSRVVP), Ujjain (HRM
Note dated 21.5.2005) as well as Rashtriya
Sanskrit Sansthan (RSkS) (HRM Note dated
12.6.2005) were asked to explore the
possibility of providing financial assistance
for the publication of the main book as well as
the auxiliary books.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 11 of 22
5. It is seen from the files of these
organizations that simultaneous process
started at both the places for publication of
the book(s). The interesting fact is that the
writer, Shri Ramesh Nirmal has projected
different amounts for publishing 2000 copies
of the books to the 2 institutions. While the
original proposal sent to MSRVVP in
September 2004 is for Rs.35 lakhs in the
proforma submitted to RSkS in May 2005, the
amount has been jacked up to Rs.45 lakhs.
He has also not revealed the fact that he had
already applied for and was in the process of
receiving finds from MSRVVP for the
publication of the same book.
6. Both organizations got the book
evaluated by NBT. Surprisingly, NBT has
given two different figures – Rs.31,42,999/-
for MSRVVP in May ‟05 and Rs.49,90,000/-
to RSkS in July ‟05 – a difference of
whopping 18 lakhs. Based on the evaluation
done in May 2005 by NBT, an amount of
Rs.31,42,199/- was released by the MSRVVP,
Ujjain in August 2005 for publication of 2000
copies of the 3 volumes of the main book as
well as eleven auxiliary books, with the
approval of HRM. 100 sets (14 x 100 = 1400
copies) of both the main book and the
auxiliary books have been provided to
MSRVVP, Ujjain.
7. In RSkS, the GIAC Meeting decided in
June ‟05, to fund 80% of the cost of
publication of the book, coming to
Rs.39,92,000/-. However, GIAC
recommended that Ministry‟s approval be
taken. But the AD (Publications) issued the
sanction order in July ‟05 without obtaining
the Ministry‟s approval as desired by GIAC.
The sanction order signed by one Dr. Prakash
Pandey also has over writing and insertions.
8. When the Ministry came to know,
RSkS was asked to explain. This resulted in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 12 of 22
the release of the amount being stopped –
although the sanction was issued in July ‟05,
no money was actually released by RSkS. The
matter was also brought to the notice of HRM
vide noting at p-12/ante.
9. Since then, Shri Mahaveer Adhikari
and Sri Ramesh Nirmal have been repeatedly
writing that RSkS, New Delhi, may also be
asked to release the promised grant for
publication of the 3 volumes of the book as
well as eleven auxiliary books. He is taking
recourse to the fact that HRM had written to
both MSRVVP and RSkS to consider
supporting the project.
10. It is clear in HRM‟s note of 12.6.05 (p-
c/29) that the funds are for publication of
2000 copies of the main books and auxiliary
books, which, by 3.6.2005, had already been
sanctioned by MSRVVP. In fact, HRM‟s
letter to Sri Mahavir Adhikari, written in
August 2005 (p-35/cor) clearly states that the
support will be shared by the two
organizations-there was never any intention of
multiplying the funds. (In any case, even if
RSkS had to provide funds, it would have
amounted to a reprint of the books, the cost of
which would then be halved and definitely not
more than the cost of the original print.)
11. The crux of the matter is the number of
copies finally printed. US (Skt) and Dy.
Director RSkS who visited the printing press
based in NOIDA, on 28.2.2006, have found
that only 2000 copies were printed and the
printer has no orders for a reprint. (p-47/cor).
12. From the facts available in the files of
the Ministry, MSRVVP and RSkS, a table has
been prepared, showing the chain of events,
(placed below, flagged). It is very clear that
the intention of the writer/ publisher from the
beginning is not entirely above board. He has
projected different amounts to different
organizations and deliberately hidden facts.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 13 of 22
As only 2000 copies appear to have been
printed, for which funds have already been
released by MSRVVP, his insistence on being
paid again by RSkS, quoting an expenditure
of Rs.40 lakhs (producing only a publishers
bill) is only to defraud the Government of
funds running into lakhs of rupees.
13. File is submitted for further orders
please. It may perhaps be desirable to obtain
legal opinion from the Min of Law/ASG on
whether any legal action can be initiated in
the matter.”
D. Thereafter the file went to the Joint Secretary (Languages)
who, after discussing the matter with the Additional Secretary,
recommended the following actions:
“i) Shri Ramesh Nirmal should be given a
formal reply from the Language Division
regarding the refusal by Rashtriya Sanskrit
Sansthan [RSkS] to release the grant.
Although a reply has been sent by RSkS,
since the letter is addressed to HRM and
Education Secretary, it would be appropriate
to send a reply from the Ministry as well.
ii) Action should be initiated against the
official in RSkS, Dr. Prakash Pandey,
Assistant Director [Res & Pub] who issued
the sanction order dated 28.7.2005 in favour
of Shri Ramesh Nirmal of „Anvitee
Prakashan‟ for release of funds without
obtaining the prior approval of the Ministry,
in spite of a clear direction of the GIAC of the
RSkS, to obtain prior approval of the
Ministry.
iii) Action should be initiated against the
official in NBT, Shri Satish Kumar [Jt.
Director/Projection] who has evaluated the
same book giving two different figures on
each evaluation, one in May, 2005 and the
other in July, 2005 – the difference in the two
estimates being as high as Rs.18 lakhs. It is
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 14 of 22
Shri Satish Kumar who has signed both the
letters, vetting the cost estimate for the 3
volumes and 11 auxiliary books.
iv) A reference be made to Ministry of
Law to ascertain whether any mensrea of the
author and publisher for committing of
offence(s) under Section 420 [cheating], 120-
A [Criminal Conspiracy] of the IPC and
misrepresentation of facts etc. gets established
in this case.”
E. The Union HRD Minister accepted the recommendations at
nd
(i) to (iii) above on 2 May 2006 and the sanction letter issued
by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan („RSkS‟) was cancelled.
F. M/s. Nag Publishers have clarified to the HRD Ministry by
th
their letter dated 13 August 2010 that the photocopies of the
rd st
letters dated 23 January 1987 and 21 December 1987 as
produced by the Petitioner [at Annexure P3 (collectively) pages
39 to 42 of the paper book] are “fake documents of original
letters”. They have provided the HRD Ministry with the copies
of the originals of those letters, as received by them from the
HRD Ministry. From this, it was clear that the copy of the letter
rd
dated 23 January 1987 as produced by the Petitioner was a
st
tampered version of its original. As regards the letter dated 21
December 1987 (copy annexed at Page 43 and 44 of the paper
book), it appeared that this letter has also been tampered. It is
stated that:
“The original letter mentions a limit of
Rs.3,29,700/- and approved expenditure as
Rs.60/- per copy, whereas the letter presented
before the Hon‟ble High Court shows the
figure as Rs.13,29,700/- and Rs.160/-
respectively. Number of copies to be
supplied to the Educational Institution is
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 15 of 22
mentioned as 100 whereas in the original
sanction letter it is 500. It is observed that the
whole text of the original letters dated
23.1.1987 and 21.12.1987 has been
rescripted/tampered with by the Petitioner to
further his ulterior motives and the
forged/tampered letters have been produced
by the Petitioner in the Hon‟ble High Court.”
G. The Petitioner had initially sought a grant of Rs.35 lakhs for
the publication of his books. After evaluating the costs in the
National Book Trust („NBT‟), an amount of Rs.31,42,199/- was
released to him through Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Ved
Vidya Pratishthan („MSRVVP‟), Ujjain for 2000 copies of three
volumes of the main book and 11 auxiliary books. While
examining the case, it was noticed by the HRD Ministry that the
th
sanction letter dated 28 July 2005 of the RSkS stated the cost
of production to be Rs.49,90,000/-(out of which Rs.39,92,000/-
was to be released towards the total cost of printing of the
book). The said letter which was issued by Shri Prakash
Pandey, the then Assistant Director (R & P), RSkS contained
overwriting in the number of copies to be printed and price per
th
set of books. NBT later clarified by a letter dated 13 May
th
2006 that the letter dated 10 July 2005 stating the cost of
production as Rs.49,90,000/- had not been issued by the NBT.
rd
H. The report dated 3 November 2009 of a fact-finding
inquiry conducted by the HRD Ministry found that an estimate
of Rs.31,42,199/- for publication of the Petitioner‟s book was
th
sent on 20 May 2005 by the NBT to MSRVVP.
“However, a second letter was sent on
24/5/2005, conveying the same estimate to the
Office of the Respondent-2 which has been
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 16 of 22
tampered with and there are overwriting and
instead of Rs.31,42,199/- an amount of
Rs.49.9 lakh is substituted. The letter
requesting for the estimate was forwarded
through the Petitioner in an open envelope
and the said letter contained over writing. On
the findings of the Fact Finding Inquiry
Disciplinary Proceedings have been initiated
against Shri Prakash Pandey, by Rashtriya
Sanskrit Sansthan.”
th
I. As regards the letter dated 10 January 2006 for release of
the grant of 2000 copies, it is submitted that:
“An inspection was conducted by the officers
of the Ministry and RSkS for verification of
the number of copies printed by the Publisher.
An inspection conducted by the then Under
Secretary (Skt.) and the then Deputy Director,
RSkS with the publisher, on 28.2.2006, it was
established that only 2000 copies each of the
main as well as the Auxiliary books were only
printed and they have not received any order
for reprint. This clearly indicates that for the
2000 copies printed, the Petitioner has
received the grant from MSRVVP for the
purpose.”
J. The Petitioner was conveyed the rejection of his request by
th th
the HRD Ministry by letters dated 15 December 2005 and 7
February 2006. A reply was also sent to the legal notice dated
th
18 May 2006. The writ petition was filed in December 2009
after a delay of more than three years. It is further stated that
the Petitioner‟s claim of having sent 1400 sets of books to the
RSkS is false and misleading. It is stated that only 100 sets of
14 books, i.e., 1400 copies had been provided.
K. The note at Annexure P22 to the writ petition, purporting to
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 17 of 22
th
be a note dated 5 November 2007 penned by the Union HRD
Minister could not be certified by the office of the then Minister
th
for want of records. Although the subsequent note dated 27
July 2008 of the Minister is acknowledged, it is stated that the
Minister was apprised of the rule position and was told of the
Ministry‟s inability to provide funds from two organizations for
the same purpose.
3. Counsel for the HRD Ministry today referred to certain notings
on the file which indicate that the present Minister of HRD was
contemplating referring the case to Central Bureau of Investigation
(„CBI‟) for the further investigations. He stated that the decision was
deferred due to the pendency of the present petition.
th
4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner on 15
January 2011. The Petitioner vehemently denies having filed false
and fabricated documents. The explanation now offered by the
th
Petitioner is that the letter dated 18 August 2004 of the Prime
th
Minister, the letter dated 18 August 2004 of the Union HRD
rd
Minister and the letter dated 23 January 1987 “were received along
rd
with letter dated 23 August 2004 (Annexure P4 to the writ petition)
written by the then Minister for HRD to Dr. Mahaveer Adhikari who
was espousing the cause of the Petitioner.” It is now claimed that the
rd
Petitioner is in possession of the original of the letter dated 23
August 2004. It is further stated that a photocopy of the Prime
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 18 of 22
th
Minister‟s letter dated 8 March 2009 along with a photocopy of the
th
letter dated 9 March 2009 written by the then HRD Minister to the
then Minister of State in the PMO “was handed over to the Petitioner
by the Additional Private Secretary to the then HRD Minister Mr. B.
D. Bhatt at the residence of the said Minister, i.e., 17, Akbar Road,
th
New Delhi between 10 and 12 in the morning of 12 March 2009.”
Annexed to this rejoinder affidavit as Annexure P-33 is the copy of
th
the said letter dated 9 March 2009 written by the then HRD
Minister to the Minister of State in the PMO making a reference to
th th
the letters dated 18 August 2004 and 8 March 2009 of the Prime
Minister. The Petitioner now claims that the note-sheets of the HRD
th th th
Minister dated 5 November 2007, 27 July 2008 and 26 December
2008 were received by the Petitioner by fax from the residence of the
then HRD Minister. The Petitioner maintains that what he said in his
petition is correct; that a total 3000 books were published, that the
Petitioner had to take a loan of Rs.35 lakhs from State Bank of
Indore and he has already paid Rs.17,26,127/- as interest and further
sum of Rs.39,75,096/- is outstanding.
5. On a careful consideration of the documents on record, the
pleadings and the submissions of counsel, this Court is of the view
that the Petitioner has hopelessly failed to make out any case for
grant of any of the reliefs prayed for in this petition. There was
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 19 of 22
sufficient material on record for the HRD Ministry to decide to
th
withdraw the sanction granted earlier to the Petitioner on 5 July
2005 by the RSkS. The orders passed by this Court as well as the
narration of the pleadings hereinbefore show that the Petitioner was
not really entitled to receive grant for the same book from the two
sources. This was contrary to the policy and practice of the HRD
rd st
Ministry. The two letters dated 23 January 1987 and 21 December
1987 that were relied upon to establish a precedent were found to be
tampered documents. The careful consideration of the factors is
th
evidenced by the detailed note dated 14 March 2006 of the Director
st
(Languages) which was forwarded along with the note dated 21
March 2006 of the Joint Secretary (Languages). The action proposed
at paras (i) to (iii) of the latter note was approved by the then HRD
Minister and the sanction order was cancelled. This Court is
th
satisfied that the impugned communications dated 15 May 2006
nd
and 2 February 2008 of the HRD Ministry cancelling the sanction
th
order dated 4/5 July 2005 of the RSkS suffer from no legal
infirmity.
6. However, the present petition raises a serious issue concerning the
production of documents by the Petitioner which are shown not to
th
exist on the official record. The letters dated 18 August 2004 and
th
8 March 2009 purportedly written by the Prime Minister to a
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 20 of 22
Cabinet colleague, viz., the Union HRD Minister have been verified
by the PMO as not having been issued by the PMO. The Union HRD
th
Minister‟s note dated 5 November 2007 could not be verified from
rd
the official record. The copies of the letters dated 23 January 1987
st
and 21 December 1987 annexed by the Petitioner with the writ
petition have been shown to be tampered versions of the originals.
An inquiry ordered by the HRD Ministry during the pendency of
these proceedings has shown the conduct of the Petitioner in
pursuing his claim was not bonafide. The counter affidavit filed on
th
7 September 2010 by the Additional Secretary in the HRD Ministry
categorically states that the above documents have been fabricated.
7. This Court is satisfied prima facie that offences under Sections
191, 192 and 196 IPC punishable under Section 193 IPC have been
committed by the Petitioner in relation to these proceedings. In terms
of Section 340(1) Cr PC read with Section 195 (1) (b) (i), this Court
is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an
inquiry should be made into the above offences for which a written
complaint should be made to the appropriate Metropolitan
Magistrate against the Petitioner. The Registrar General is hereby
directed to draw up and make a complaint in the above terms and
send it to the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate within four weeks.
The said complaint will be accompanied by a complete certified
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 21 of 22
copy of the entire file, and the sealed cover containing the documents
nd
placed therein pursuant to the order dated 22 July 2010 of this
Court. The above complaint and documents will be personally
delivered by a Special Messenger to the Metropolitan Magistrate
concerned and an appropriate acknowledgement obtained and kept in
the records.
8. In the event that the case is referred to the CBI by HRD Ministry,
the CBI will have liberty to apply to the Metropolitan Magistrate
concerned to obtain certified copies of any of the documents forming
part of the record, including those placed in the sealed cover. The
CBI will also have access to the original documents for the purpose
of their investigations.
9. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- which
shall be paid by the Petitioner to the HRD Ministry within a period
of four weeks.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
FEBRUARY 3 , 2011
ha
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13679 of 2009 Page 22 of 22