JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA vs. STATE OF UP

1 (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 JUDGMENT th the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dated 16 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 Page 1 2 nd Uttar Pradesh, dated 22 February, 2012. Following reliefs were prayed in the said writ petition:

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 JUDGMENT 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: Page 2 3

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. JUDGMENT 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 Page 3 4 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.

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. JUDGMENT 2. Compliance report may be made available within one month. Sd/- illegible (Justice N.K. Mehrotra) Lok Ayukt, U.P. Page 4 5 On the basis of the above conclusions, the Lokayukta made following recommendations:

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 JUDGMENT the Lokayukta, for which, filed Writ Petition No.5744 of 2012 on th 12 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 Page 5 6 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

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 th limine on 16 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, JUDGMENT Under Secretary in the Vigilance Department of the State th Government on 9 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 th Government Order dated 10 July, 2013. Page 6 7 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

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 th FIR No.385 of 2013 dated 6 July, 2013 registered at Police Station JUDGMENT 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 Page 7 8 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,

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 JUDGMENT or interstate ramification which may require a specialized investigation by the C.B.I., to be treated as rare and exceptional case. rd 10. The respondent no.6 has filed reply affidavit on 23 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 Page 8 9 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

rd also filed an affidavit on same lines as respondent no.6 dated 23 July, 2015. nd 11. When this matter was heard on 22 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 JUDGMENT Page 9 10

12. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Under Secretary in the Vigilance Department at Lucknow Sri Yatindra Kumar, has filed th affidavit sworn on 9 August, 2016, disclosing the progress of the JUDGMENT 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: I. Progress regarding reference to the State Vigilance Establishment Page 10 11

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. JUDGMENT 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 Page 11 12

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. JUDGMENT II. 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 Page 12 13 letter dated 24.8.2012 to the Competent Authority of the U.P. Government.

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. JUDGMENT In the meanwhile, Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his family members preferred several representations in relation Page 13 14 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.

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 JUDGMENT Page 14 15 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.

JUDGMENT 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 Page 15 16 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,

progress and effort is being made to conclude the same in right

Page 16 17

14. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the concerned

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 JUDGMENT 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 Page 17 18 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

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 JUDGMENT 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 Page 18 19 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.

………………………….. CJI (T.S.Thakur) ……………………………. J. (A.M.Khanwilkar) New Delhi, th 26 September 2016 JUDGMENT Page 19