The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's direction for a preliminary inquiry by the CBI into the alleged acquisition of wealth by the respondents, emphasizing the need for a fair and complete investigation, mindful of upholding the rule of law and the right to equality guaranteed in the Constitution.

Judgment

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. - The above writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India styled as public interest litigation has been preferred a for seeking enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, he is an advocate by profession and not connected or related to any political 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 3 would go to prove that Respondent 3 is having more access in the office of Congress Party, more than even the members of AICC/U.P. CC and that Respondent 3 with the help of some employees of AICC/U.P. CC 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 c alleged PIL cell of the party concerned. 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 3 along with his affidavit is a frivolous list. It is also further stated that the petitioner never attended the 82nd Plenary Session of AICC at Hyderabad and Annexure A - 3 is a frivolous document which is prepared by Respondent 3 with the help of some employees of U.P. CC and that the petitioner also paid some money to an employee of U.P. CC and got some identity cards prepared in the name of Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, Shri Shivpal Singh Yadav, Shri Akhilesh Yadav and Shri Ram Gopal Yadav. Copies of the said identity cards have also been enclosed as Annexure K - 6 to the rejoinder to the counter - affidavit. We have perused the identity cards, namely, Annexures A - 3 and K - 6. In our opinion, both the identity e cards which are xerox copies cannot at all be considered as authenticated documents. In the absence of concrete proof that the petitioner belongs to the Congress Party, his writ petition cannot be thrown out on the question of maintainability and on the ground that the petitioner is an active member of the Indian National Congress and the officer in charge of the Humanitarian Aid and Redressal Public Grievance Cell. We do not, therefore, propose to f deal with this issue any further and proceed to consider the case of both the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the above petition with the following prayers:

"(a) issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent 1 to take appropriate action to prosecute Respondents 2 to 5 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for 9 acquiring amassed assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power and authority;

(b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

3. According to the petitioner, the contesting respondents have misused their power and authority and have acquired assets more than the known h sources of their income. Apart from the Vnion of India, the petitioner has arrayed Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the sitting Chief Minister, V.P., and his two sons and one daughter - in - law as party respondents. In para 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner alleges to have made a representation dated 6 - 11 - 2005 being Annexure P - 3, to the Honble Home Minister, Government of India, giving all the details and requested the Home Minister to take appropriate action against the respondents. It is alleged that the Home Minister has failed to take action against the aforesaid respondents under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The petitioner also made a representation dated 2 - 7 - 2005 to the Honble Governor of the State of U.P. requesting the Governor to take immediate action against the 2n