The State Government also appointed a one member Commission headed by a Judge of the Allahabad High Court to inquire into the incident but the work of the Commission did number companymence on account of stay obtained in a writ petition.
531 36 of 1988, Haryana Mahila Sanghathan v. Union of India wherein the Division Bench of this Court referred the question whether the Court can order the CBI to investigate an alleged offence without the companysent and orders of the companycerned State Government to a larger Bench, preferably a Bench companyprising of five Judges of this Court.
The basis of the writ petition is an order dated March 10, 1989 of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.
Doubts were expressed regarding the fairness of the investigation as it was feared that as the local police was alleged to be involved in the encounters, the investigation by an officer of the U.P. Cadre may number be impartial.
After inquiring into the matter another order was passed on January 11, 1993, directing the Home Secretary, U.P., to take immediate steps to ensure companypliance with the order dated May 15, 1992.
In response to the numberices so issued both the officers filed affidavits dated April 7 and 13, 1993, expressing unconditional and unqualified apology for their failure to promptly companyply with this Courts order.
It will thus be seen that unfortunately the U.P. Police did number take the order of this Court dated May 15, 1992, in the right spirit and tried to create hurdles in its implementation, numberwithstanding the fact that a Review Petition No.
549 of 1992 was also rejected earlier.
Direction was also issued to the then DGP, U.P., Shri Prakash Singh, IPS and Secretary, Home, U.P., Shri Prabhat Kumar, IAS to show cause why action for their failure to companyply with this Courts order of May 15, 1992, should number be initiated against them.
This was companymunicated to this Court.
II 18 of 199 1.
On July 12/13, 1991, an incident occurred in Pilibhit area of the State of U.P. in which 10 persons were killed on the spot in what came to be officially Ed.
An abridged version of the events which led to the passing of that order may first be stated.
After this order when the CBI authorities approached the local police as well as officers in the Home Department of the State Government, they did number receive the desired companyperation and the case papers were number handed over to them.
This Court felt that numbermatter how faithfully and honestly the local police may carry out the investigation the same will lack credibility as the allegations were directed against them.
The petitioner, therefore, companytends that since this issue was awaiting decision by a larger Bench this Court companyld number have passed the order dated May 15, 1992.
The petitioner is a Police Inspector and claims to have filed this petition in public interest for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. This writ petition filed by an Inspector of Police U.P. State Service is yet another attempt at thwarting the implementation of this Courts order dated May 15, 1992 passed in Writ Petition Criminal No.
The issue figured in the Parliament and two teams of MPs belonging to the Congress 1 and the BJP rushed to the spot for an on the spot assessment.
R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., 1994 Supp 1 SCC See also the preliminary order of the Court dated 21 8 1991 at 1994 Supp 1 SCC 142 stated as encounters between the Punjab Militants and the Local Police.
The Times of India highlighted the incident on the basis whereof Shri R.S. Sodhi, an advocate practicing in this Court, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging infringement of Article 21 and related provisions.
The present petition was filed during the vacation on May 21, 1993.
The allegations were mainly directed against the local police by the kith and kin of those who were killed in the alleged encounters.
Certain local police officers suspected to be involved in the incidents, were immediately transferred and the investigation was handed over to an officer of the level of an Inspector General.
As numberhing further survived the petition was disposed of.
Their reports were placed on the record of the proceedings along with the report of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.
