important point
Apprehension that the interested parties would not question orders passed by Magistrate before the higher forum, by itself would not confer a jurisdiction on Supreme Court to step in.

Headnote:(a)Constitution of India – Article 32 – PIL – Once a final report has been filed in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the Magistrate and Magistrate alone who can take appropriate decision in the matter one way or the other – If it errs while passing a judicial order, the same may be a subject matter of appeal or judicial review – There may be a possibility of the prosecuting agencies not approaching the higher forum against an order passed by the learned Magistrate – In an unlikely event of the interested parties in not questioning such orders before the higher forum, an independent public interest litigation may be filed – But the same by itself would not confer a jurisdiction on Supreme Court to step in. (Paras 7, 8 and 10)
       (2007) 1 SCC 110 – Referred.
       (1998) 1 SCC 226; (2006) 6 SCC 613 – Relied upon.
       (b)Constitution of India – Articles 32 and 49 – It is one thing to say that this Court will not refrain from exercising its jurisdiction from issuing any direction for protection of cultural heritage and the ecology and environment; but it should not take upon itself the task of determining the guilt or otherwise of an individual involved in the criminal proceeding. (Para 11)
       (2003) 6 SCC 195 – Relied upon.
       (c)Constitution of India – Article 32 – PIL – While entertaining a public interest litigation in a given case, Supreme Court may exercise a jurisdiction to set aside the decision of a constitutional authority – However, if no sanction of the Governor was required or if he has committed an error in passing the said order, the appropriate court would be entitled to deal therewith, but not the Supreme Court. (Para 13)
       Facts of the case:
       1.This application raises a question whether refusal by Governor of U.P. to grant sanction for prosecution of Ms. Mayawati and Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui can be considered by Supreme Court.
       2.A project known as ‘Taj Heritage Corridor Project’ was initiated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. One of the main purpose for which the same was undertaken was to divert the River Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort and the Taj Mahal and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement activities. The said activities on the part of the Government of Uttar Pradesh was brought to the notice of Supreme Court. An exception thereto was taken. A detailed inquiry was directed to be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Upon consideration of the report submitted before it by CBI, Supreme Court in its order dated 18.09.2003 directed it to register a First Information Report and make further investigation in accordance with law. CBI investigated into the matter, including the roles played by Ms. Mayawati, the then Chief Minister, and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Investigations were also carried out against some officers.
       3.Special Judge directed CBI to obtain sanction of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. Governor of Uttar Pradesh has refused to accord the same.
       Findings of the Court:
       The Supreme Court should not entertain the application.
       Result : Application dismissed.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Whether this Bench should consider the correctness of an order passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of Ms. Mayawati and Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui is the prime question involved in this application.

2.A public interest litigation was entertained by this Court in a writ application filed by the writ petitioner. This Court with a view to ensure proper maintenance of cultural heritage of India as also the ecology has been passing orders in the writ petition from time to time.

3.A project known as Taj Heritage Corridor Project was initiated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. One of the main purpose for which the same was undertaken was to divert the River Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort and the Taj Mahal and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement activities. The said activities on the part of the Government of Uttar Pradesh was brought to the notice of this Court. An exception thereto was taken. A detailed inquiry was directed to be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Upon consideration of the report submitted before it by CBI, this Court in its order dated 18.09.2003 directed it to register a First Information Report and make further investigation in accordance with law. CBI investigated into the matter, including the roles played by Ms. Mayawati, the then Chief Minister, and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Investigations were also carried out against some officers.

CBI was later on asked to furnish a self-contained note as regards its findings against the erring officers and holders of public posts. A detailed report was submitted by it. A question arose as to what directions, if any, should be issued by this Court having regard to the conflict in opinions expressed by different authorities of CBI in regard to Ms. Mayawati and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddiqui.

The said question was considered by this Court in its judgment and order dated 27.11.2006 in M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India and Others,1 [(2007) 1 SCC 110].

4.Indisputably, the said order of this Court has been complied with. It now appears that the learned Special Judge directed CBI to obtain sanction of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. By reason of an order dated 03.06.2007 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh has refused to accord the same.

5.Mr. Krishan Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae, who has been assisting this Court very ably in the matter, filed an application, inter alia, praying for :

“In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is most humbly prayed that this Honble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order :

(i)Concerning the legal validity of the CBI seeking a sanction for the prosecution of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati and Minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui under Section 197 Cr. P.C. by calling for the records of the materials it placed before the Governor for seeking such sanction.

(ii)Directing the CBI to produce a copy of the June 3, 2007 sanction order of His Excellency the Governor of U.P. passed in connection with the case pending before the Special Judge/competent court based on FIR RC 0062003A0018.

(iii)Passing appropriate directions on the legal validity or otherwise of the June 3, 2007 order of His Excellency the U.P. Governor refusing under Section 197 (1) Cr. P.C. sanction for the prosecution of Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati and Minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui in relation to FIR RC 0062003A0018 registered against them by the CBI pursuant to the September 18, 2003 order ofthis Honble Court in I.A. 376 in CWP 13381/1984 and the investigation on which with the opinion of the CBI Superintendent of Police was directed by this Honble Court on Nov. 27, 2006 to be placed before the concerned court/Special Judge for deciding the matter in accordance with law.

(iv)Declaring that the sanction orders passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1311

2007(7) Supreme 495Supreme Court of indiaS.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia & D.K. Jain, JJ.M.C. Mehta — AppellantversusUnion of India & Ors. — RespondentI.A. NO. 465 of 2007Writ Petition (civil) 13381 of 1984Decided on : 10-10-2007

important pointApprehension that the interested parties would not question orders passed by Magistrate before the higher forum, by itself would not confer a jurisdiction on Supreme Court to step in.

Cases Referred (4)

2007(7) Supreme 495
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia & D.K. Jain, JJ.
M.C. Mehta — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondent
I.A. NO. 465 of 2007
Writ Petition (civil) 13381 of 1984
Decided on : 10-10-2007

important point
Apprehension that the interested parties would not question orders passed by Magistrate before the higher forum, by itself would not confer a jurisdiction on Supreme Court to step in.