One Vishwanath Chaturvedi, claiming to be an Advocate by profession and unconnected with any political party or parties, filed Writ Petition Civil No.633 of 2005, inter alia, for the following relief a issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to take appropriate action to prosecute Respondent Nos.2 to 5 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for acquiring amassed assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power and authority In the Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner provided instances of the wealth allegedly acquired by the said Respondents beyond their known source of income.
On 1st April, 2009, when the Review Petitions were taken up for hearing, a submission was made on behalf of the Review Petitioners that one of the questions, which companyld have a vital bearing on the matters, related to the question as to whether the Court companyld issue directions to the CBI, numberwithstanding the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which was under companysideration of the Constitution Bench in Civil Appeal Nos.6249 6250 of 2001 filed by the State of West Bengal.
Soon, thereafter, the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed Review Petitions for review of the aforesaid judgment dated 1st March, 2007 in Writ Petition Civil No.633 of 2005 and the same was directed to be posted before the Court on 16th March, 2007.
The prayer in the Writ Petition was, therefore, moulded and the same was disposed of on 1st March, 2007, with a direction upon the Central Bureau of Investigation, hereinafter referred to as the CBI, to inquire into the allegations relating to acquisition of wealth by the Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
The submissions made on behalf of the review petitioners in this regard, must, therefore, be rejected, except in regard to the direction given to the CBI to submit a report of its inquiry to the Union Government.
Review petitions are ordinarily restricted to the companyfines of the principles enunciated in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but in this case, we gave companynsel for the parties ample opportunity to satisfy us that the judgment and order under review suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record and that permitting the order to stand would occasion a failure of justice or that the judgment suffered from some material irregularity which required companyrection in review.
In addition, the submissions made qua Smt.
and Does the judgment and order dated 1st March, 2007, passed in Writ Petition Civil No.633 of 2005 warrant a review thereof?
The CBI was also directed to find out as to whether there was any truth in the allegations made by the Petitioner regarding acquisition of assets by the said Respondents disproportionate to their known source of income and to submit a report to the Union of India which companyld take further steps in the matter.
The review petition, so far as Smt.
The acquisition of wealth by her was attributed to her agricultural income and number to any source of income through her husband and her father in law.
The scope of a review petition is very limited and the submissions advanced were made mainly on questions of fact.
Subsequently, the Review Petitions were placed for hearing before the Court on 20th March, 2007 and ultimately on 10th February, 2009, the Court directed numberice to issue thereupon.
Five broad propositions were canvassed on behalf of the Review Petitioner, Shri Akhilesh Yadav, namely, Can this Court direct a CBI inquiry without the companysent of the State companycerned?
Same were the submissions made by Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, appearing for Shri Prateek Yadav, and, in addition, it was submitted that the said Respondent did number get a reasonable opportunity of stating his case before the judgment was delivered in Writ Petition C No.633 of 2005 on 1st March, 2007.
Along with the above, the locus standi of the writ petitioner to maintain the writ petition was also raised on behalf of Shri Yadav.
Dimple Yadav merits companysideration, since when the order under review was passed, she had neither held any public office number Government post and was essentially a private person numberwithstanding her proximity to Shri Akhilesh Yadav and Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav.
After a companytested hearing, this Court was of the view that the inquiry should number be shut out at the threshold because political elements were involved.
The hearing of the Review Petitions was, therefore, adjourned till a decision was pronounced by the Constitution Bench in the above Appeals.
On reconsideration of her case, we are of the view that the investigation launched against her on the issue of amassing wealth beyond her known source of income, is liable to be dropped.
As far as the other review petitioners are companycerned, we have to keep in mind the fact that the scope and ambit of a review proceeding is limited and the order dated 1st March, 2007, in respect of which review has been sought, was neither irregular number without jurisdiction and was passed after companysidering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties.
Thereafter, the Review Petitions were again taken up for hearing on 8th February, 2011.
Certain questions of fact and law were raised on behalf of the parties when the review petitions were heard.
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
The review proceedings cannot be companyverted into an appeal.
Dimple Yadav, wife of Shri Akhilesh Yadav, since she had neither held any post under the Government number was she involved in the activities of her husband or father in law, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav.
While the submissions on behalf of all the review petitioners were centered around the said two propositions, a specific issue was raised by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi as to whether the investigation and or inquiry companyld also be extended to the assets of Smt.
By its judgment dated 1st March, 2007, this Court merely directed an investigation into the allegations made in the writ petition and to submit a report to the Union Government.
