Respondent number7 C.B.I. has caused to file affidavit of Rajiv Kumar, Deputy S.P., CBI, ACB, Lucknow, in February, 2014.
Husna Siddiqui, Member of U.P. Legislative Council and Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, ex Cabinet Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in respect of which after companyducting an enquiry, the Honble Lokayukta vide letter dated 22.02.2012, submitted Report number03 2012 to the Competent Authority, Government of U.P. After due companysideration of the said report and recommendations of the Honble Lokayukta, vide order dated 10.07.2013, it was directed by the State Government that open enquiry by companyducted against the said Smt.
The open enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Establishment, and the representations affidavits by Smt.
The affidavit also mentions that an action of provisional attachment of proceeds of crime or property involved in money laundering shall be undertaken upon filing of a police report under Section 173 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, by the law enforcement agency.
5 and 6, in terms of the recommendation of the Opposite Party No.4.
Banda for a meager price of Rs.4,50,000/ .
In this view of the matter as aforestated, the State Government vide D.O. letter number VIP/36/39 4 15 50H 2 /2013 dated 26.2.2016, has directed the Vigilance Establishment to submit a factual report in regard thereto after enquiring into the matter in detail.
Further, it had numberauthority 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.
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.
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.
In companytinuation with the said direction of the State Government dated 2.7.2013, Case Crime number 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 P. Vigilance Establishment, Allahabad Sector, at P.S. Kotwali, District banda, against Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the chick number of which as 385/2013.
The respondent number6 has filed reply affidavit on 23rd July, 2015, to oppose this appeal.
In the meanwhile, Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his family members preferred several representations in relation 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.
In companypliance with the said order dated 10.07.2013 by the State Government, whereby open enquiry was directed to be companyducted, the Vigilance Establishment companypleted the enquiry and report was submitted to the State Government vide letter dated 29.07.2015.
Husna Siddiqui, Member of Legislative Council and Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Cabinet Minister in U.P., respondent number6 and 5 respectively.
1 to 3 caused to file affidavit of Yatindra Kumar, Under Secretary in the Vigilance Department of the State Government on 9th October, 2014.
The other action taken for companylection of Bank statements, income tax returns and property details of respondent number5 and his relatives by the respective law enforcement agency has been requisitioned and the document so received are being scrutinized.
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.
This affidavit also mentions that FIR No.385 of 2013 dated 6th July, 2013 registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Banda, P., for offences punishable under Section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent number5 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.
Akrami Begum and Smt.
This Court issued numberice to the respondents including the State Authorities.
Following reliefs were prayed in the said writ petition Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Honble Court may kindly be pleased, in the interest of justice, to 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.
In companypliance with the State Governments order dated 4.10.2012 directing an open enquiry, the Vigilance Establishment has companypleted the said open enquiry and its report was submitted to the State Government vide letter dated 29.4.2013.
Upma Gupta, Smt.
They also purchased land worth Rs.3,60,00,000/ in village Ladakapurwa, Dist.
One crore situated in Tindwari, Dist.
The progress made in that regard is however number immediately known to him.
They purchased Bungalow numberB 3, Timaiya Road, Cantonment, Lucknow worth crores of rupees for just Rs.50,00,000/ .
Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Under Secretary in the Vigilance Department at Lucknow Sri Yatindra Kumar, has filed affidavit sworn on 9th August, 2016, disclosing the progress of the respective case initiated against respondent number.5 and 6.
Upma Gupta wife of Sri Krishna Chandra Gupta, an Engineer in Nirman Nigam in the year 2008.
It is prayed by the said respondent that the appeal does number merit interference.
Post after two weeks.
Issue any other writ, order or direction as may be deem fit and proper by this Honble Court for giving just, proper and effective relief to the petitioner.
It is stated that after companypletion of investigation in the aforestated Crime number407/13, the Vigilance Establishment vide letter dated 29.7.2015 submitted its investigation report to the State Government.
The Court also opined that there was numberelement of public interest in the grievances made by the appellant.
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 numbered in the report of the Lokayukta through the State Vigilance Establishment by way of an open vigilance enquiry, vide Government Order dated 10th July, 2013.
They had also purchased agriculture land worth Rs.
Award the companyts of the writ petition to the petitioner.
On that finding the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine on 16th July, 2012.
When this matter was heard on 22nd July, 2016 this Court passed the following order Heard.
After due enquiry the Lokayukta arrived at the following companyclusion as numbered in the aforesaid report On the basis of the prima facie evidences companylected in the companyrse of investigation, I reach the companyclusion that the delinquent public servants had purchased land worth Rs.16,39,99,227/ as per the market value for a meager price of Rs.46,32,600/ for their Private Society.
The respondent number5 has also filed an affidavit on same lines as respondent number6 dated 23rd July, 2015.
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.
Arshi Siddiqui, daughter in law of Sri Jamiruddin Siddiqui and Smt.
The report was the outcome of the companyplaint made by one Shri Jagdish Narain Shukla against Smt.
The respondent number.
Akrami Begum wife of Sri Jamiruddin Siddiqui, Smt.
In the meanwhile, various representations affidavits were submitted to the State Government by Smt.
Arshi Siddiqui, daughter in law of Sri Jamiruddin Siddiqui, Smt.
The Lokayukta had submitted the said report under the Provisions of Section 12 3 of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up Lokayuktas Act, 1975 to the Competent Authority for taking necessary action.
Banda was purchased by Smt.
The respondent number8 Directorate of Enforcement caused to file affidavit of Gurinder Singh Chawla, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Government of India, New Delhi dated 4th March, 2015, stating that the Director of Enforcement has been mandated to investigate companytraventions relating to Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and offences of money laundering under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
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.
He seeks time to take instructions if any action has been taken pursuant to the reference made by the Government to the Vigilance establishment.
Husna Siddiqui and Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui by the U.P. Vigilance Establishment, following the said report by the Honble Lokayukta.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dated 16th July, 2012 in Writ Petition No.5744 of 2012.
The appellant had filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation praying for implementation of the recommendation report of the Lokayukta Uttar Pradesh, dated 22nd February, 2012.
Husna Siddiqui and her relations, were companyprehensively companysidered by the State Government, and after companyprehensive companysideration, after taking companynizance of all the facts mentioned in the aforesaid representations affidavits in relation to the open enquiry companyducted by the Vigilance Establishment, it was found justifiable to get a factual report in regard thereto, after carefully examining scrutinizing the documents enclosed with the said representations affidavits.
In that reply affidavit, it is stated that on a companyplaint by one Mr. Ashish Sagar a vigilance investigation has been companymenced in respect of which FIR No.385/2013 has been registered and that she has participated and fully companyperated in the said investigation.
Banda for a meager price of Rs.5,50,000/ by way of involving name of Smt.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned companynsel for the 2 respondent State of Uttar Pradesh, submits that taking companynizance 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 said affidavit reads thus That, in respectful companypliance of the said order dated 22.07.2016 passed by this Honble Court, the status of various proceedings against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the present petition, is as under Progress regarding reference to the State Vigilance Establishment That, in this regard it is stated that a companyplaint was filed before the Lokayukta Establishment Uttar Pradesh by Sri Jagdish Narain Shukla of Lucknow against Smt.
