9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l party or parties. According to him, he has filed this petition with an intention to highlight the root of corruption in U.P. Administration. According to him, he has no relation or connection with Congress Party as on date and that the documents which have been enclosed along with the additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 would go to prove that respondent No. 3 is having more access in the office of Congress party, more than even the members of AICC/UPCC and that respondent No. 3 with the help of some employees of AICC/UPCC succeeded in forging documents to project the petitioner as a sponsored person of Congress. It is also further stated that he is not connected with any alleged PIL Cell of concerned party. The name of the petitioner does not appear in the list which is approved by the office of the Congress party and that the list annexed by respondent No. 3 along with his affidavit is a frivolous list. It is also further stated that the petitioner never attended 82nd Plenary Session of AICC at Hyderabad and Annexure A-3 is a frivolous document which is prepared by respondent No. 3 with the help of some employees of U.P.C.C. and that the petitioner also paid some mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the 2nd respondent, his sons and one daughter-in-law under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the Governor has failed to take any action on the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner in the representation has given the details in regard to the properties owned by all the contesting respondents. The petitioner has also filed all the sale deeds and other documents. According to the petitioner, though some of the properties mentioned by Shri Akhilesh Yadav and Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, in the affidavits submitted by them before the Election Commissioner, however, source of acquiring such properties have not been mentioned in the said affidavits. From the year 1977, both Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav and Shri Akhilesh Yadav were completely involved in full time political activities. According to the petitioner, the contesting respondents owned properties worth several crores which have been acquired by them and that these properties have been undervalued by these persons and the market value of aforesaid properties is ten times more than the value mentioned by them in their affidavits and in the sale deeds. It is further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Return and Wealth Tax Assessment Orders for the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 in sealed covers. Respondent Nos. 2-5 also filed separate affidavits along with income-tax returns etc. The second respondent has also explained in his affidavit dated 7.7.2006 that all the returns of the deponent/respondent No. 2 and the return of Samajwadi Party for the assessment year 2005-2006 as well- as the assessment orders passed with respect to the deponent/respondent No. 2, are being submitted in a sealed cover for the perusal of this? Court and that it also includes material submitted along with the returns. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the reason for submitting the material in sealed cover is that the said documents are not public documents and are otherwise liable to be misused. Similar affidavits have also been filed by the other respondents 3-5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2-5 denying all the allegations and the statements made in the writ petition. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit that the reliefs sought for in the instant petition are not maintainable inasmuch as the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly have also constructed several huge buildings at Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow near Raj Bhawan and Vidhan Sabha. Photos of said buildings are enclosed herewith as Annexure K-11 to this affidavit. (e) Respondents have recently given one of the buildings situated at 31/93 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow to ABN Amro Bank. Petitioner has reasons to believe that said building has been given on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 lacs. A photo of said building given on rent to ABN Amro Bank is enclosed herewith as Annexure K-12 to this affidavit. (f) Respondents were having a very big farm house near Gomti Nagar, Lucknow measuring about 5 acres, which was sold recently for a sum of Rs. 5 crores by respondents Shri Akhilesh Yadav and Shri Pratik Yadav. Photo of said farm house is enclosed herewith as annexure K-13 to this affidavit. (g) Respondent Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav is having a very big house at Friends Colony, Etawah. Photo of same is enclosed herewith as Annexure K-14 to this affidavit. (h) Respondent Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav is also having a bungalow at Civil Lines, Etawah. Photo of same is enclosed herewith as annexure K-15 to this affidavit. (i) Respondent Shri Akhilesh Yadav is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayam Singh Yadav, respondent No. 2 to personally attend his office on 26.5.2006 to give evidence and to produce through an authorized representative the books of account and or other documents specified in the notice etc. (3) xerox copy of the letter dated 24.5.2006 from Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, respondent No. 2 to The Additional Director of Income Tax, Lucknow informing about furnishing of the documents, as required, through an authorized representative and Counsel. (4) Xerox copy of the letter dated 15.6.2006 from the Authorised representative and counsel to the Additional Director of Income-Tax, Lucknow furnishing certain information with reference to the notice. 10. Mr. D.K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on 20.2.2007 furnished a corrected chart running into six pages in regard to the name, description of property, consideration alleged to be paid, market value on the date of purchase and the market value in 2007 and also a xerox copy of the Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition by John E. Nowak. It is marked as 'C'. 11. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, along with his letter dated 23.2.2007 submitted rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He invited our attention to the pleadings and the charts filed by the petitioner before-this Court. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in K.L. Dorji v. C.B.I. (1992) ILLJ 922 SC and in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab : AIR 2007 SC 1274. 15. He also relied on a. judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. 1998 CriLJ 1208. In paragraphs 55 and 56 this Court observed as under: 55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain power to De exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust, for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of the them amounts TO a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie, case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the paragraphs (b), (f) and (g) of the common counter affidavit of reply in regard to respondent No. 2 and submitted that the information already furnished are available with the Income-tax Department and are not public records. Mr. Harish Salve further invited our attention to the prayer made in the writ petition, additional affidavit filed by the petitioner (page 276 of the paper book) and the reply filed thereon. According to him, the facts mentioned and details furnished in the writ petition are highly disputed facts and Income-tax authorities are already working on it and that the writ petition has been filed by a political opponent, the same cannot be countenanced and is liable to be dismissed. 17. He invited our attention to paragraphs 171 and 173 of the judgment of this Court in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and Ors. [1999] 3 SCR 1279 and submitted that having regard to the facts of the case and the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents, no case was made out against the respondents for any case being registered against them on the basis of the allegations made in the writ petition nor was there any occasion to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that he has a substantial income from wholesale trading in agricultural produce. 20. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 who is a student and son of respondent No. 2. He simply submitted that the mother of respondent No. 5 purchased a plot in his name. He further submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold as it is politically motivated. He invited our attention to pages 388 and 431 of the writ petition and submitted that the property was purchased on 24.12.1999 by Smt. Sadhana, the mother of respondent No. 5 herein from one Shri Ranveer Singh and Shri Rajesh Bhojwani vide two cheques drawn on Allahabad Bank, Etawah. Vide agreement dated 7.10.2006, the said property has been sold to M/s Liza Builders Pvt. Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 2.50 crores and advance of Rs. 1 crore has been received for the same. With regard to the property mentioned at paragraph (b) at page 9, it is submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,89,30,000/- (cost of Rs. 1,72,00,000/- and stamp duty and miscellaneous charges of Rs. 17,30,000/- was paid for the same) and for the said purchase, a loan of Rs. 1,10,000,00/- had been taken from respondent No. 3 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Assessment Orders, Sale deeds etc. have to be carefully looked into and analysed only by an independent agency with the assistance of the Chartered Accountant and other accredited Engineers and valuers of the property. As stated by the petitioner, very valuable properties in the heart of the City have been purchased for lower sale consideration and lesser than the market value on the date of purchase and, therefore, it requires a detailed enquiry which is time consuming. This Court will not be in a position to verify each and every entry, the sale deed, the extent of the property, the location and description of the property, the name of the purchaser, the name of the vendee, consideration alleged to be paid and the market value on the date of the purchase etc. etc. 25. We have already referred to the prayer made at page 17 of the writ petition paper book which is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India to take appropriate action to prosecute respondent Nos. 2-5 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for acquiring assets more than the known source of their income. The said prayer, in our opinion, cannot at all be countenanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent of a person with political difference raises an allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, we mould the prayer in the writ petition and direct the CBI to enquire into alleged acquisition of wealth by respondent Nos. 2-5 and find out as to whether the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets to the known source of income of respondent Nos. 2-5 is correct or not and submit a report to the Union of India and on receipt of such report, the Union of India may take further steps depending upon the outcome of the preliminary enquiry into the assets of respondent Nos. 2. 29. In the instant case, it needs to be noted that we are concerned in this case not with the merits of the allegations. The present petition is filed on acquisition of alleged wealth. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioner's interest. In our view, it is wrong in law for the Court to judge the petitioner's interest without looking into the subject matter of his complaint and if the petitioner shows failure of public duty, the Court would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
