13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, 2003 8 SCC 696?
A perusal of the same shows that the Assistant Registrar of this Court has been described as the Complainant.
In the said application, the intervener has also highlighted various earlier orders of this Court.
directed the CBI to companyduct an inquiry on the basis of an I.A. filed in the aforesaid writ petition alleging various irregularities companymitted by the officers persons in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and to submit a Preliminary Report.
R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 lodged under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the PC Act against the petitioner herein to investigate into the matter of alleged disproportionate assets is beyond the scope of the directions passed by this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 in I.A. No.
This Court also directed the CBI to submit Preliminary report within four weeks and final report within two months from 16.07.2003.
Even thereafter, the petitioner has made several representations to the Director, CBI to drop the investigation on the basis of the aforesaid FIR.
Stand of the CBI Respondent No.2 Pursuant to the numberice issued on 15.05.2008, the CBI Respondent No.2 herein has filed its companynter affidavit wherein it was stated that in the order dated 18.09.2003 of this Court, there was a clear direction to register an FIR for investigating into disproportionate assets of the petitioner on the ground that in the said order it was mentioned that apart from what has been stated in the reports with regard to the assets, the learned ASG Mr. Altaf Ahmad has submitted that further inquiry investigation is necessary by the CBI.
434 of 2007.
However, this Court, by order dated 06.08.2007, dismissed the same as withdrawn.
The said FIR as well as the companynter affidavit filed by the CBI states that the FIR has been filed as per the directions companytained in the order dated 18.09.2003.
This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003 in I.A. No.
The intervention application is therefore, misconceived.
The said I.A. was resisted by the petitioner by pointing out that in the present writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the second FIR i.e. R.C. No.
Hence, she approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
While companysidering the directions issued in the order dated 18.09.2003, it is incumbent to refer the orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003 and 11.09.2003.
In the same order, this Court observed that it would be open to the CBI officer to interrogate and verify their assets because it was alleged that Rs.
13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India Ors.
In the next order dated 21.08.2003, M.C Mehta vs. Union of India, 2003 8 SCC 711, this Court, after going through the Preliminary Confidential Report submitted by the CBI, directed the higher officer of CBI to interrogate four, five or six more persons who are involved in the decision making of granting companytract for companystruction of the Taj Heritage Corridor.
19 only on the ground that there was numbersuch direction in the order dated 18.09.2003 passed by this Court.
The order of the Governor was also challenged before this Court in Writ Petition Civil No.
The petitioner had also served as a Member of Parliament many a time both as a Member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and had also served as a Member of Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of the State of U.P. The petitioner is a law graduate and had been a teacher from 1977 to 1984.
In the light of the above pleadings of the parties, we heard Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and CBI and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned companynsel for the intervener.
Further case of the petitioner A rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit and supplementary companynter affidavits have also been filed wherein subsequent developments which took place during the pendency of the writ petition, especially, passing of various orders by the Income Tax Authorities, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in favour of the petitioner for different assessment years have been mentioned holding that all income shown in her accounts in the form of gift or otherwise are genuine and legal, companyering from 1995 to 2004 of which period the assessments were reopened, investigated and reassessed.
At present, the petitioner is the President of a National Political Party called as Bahujan Samaj Party BSP , which is one of the six National Parties recognized by the Election Commission of India.
387 of 2003 in Writ Petition C No.
However, the CBI is bent upon harassing the petitioner.
Case of the intervenor During the pendency of this writ petition, which was filed in 2008, one Mr. Kamlesh Verma has filed I.A. No.
8 of 2010 claiming that he is a social worker and petitioner in Writ Petition No.
17 crores which was alleged to have been released without proper sanction for the said Project.
376 of 2003 in W.P. C No.
The CBI Respondent No.
The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition, is summarized hereunder On the date of filing of this writ petition before this Court, the petitioner was the Chief Minister of U.P. Earlier also, the petitioner had been the Chief Minister of U.P. for three times.
Sathasivam,J. The only question raised in this writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is as to whether FIR No.
