Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
RANG NATH MISHRA - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3581 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13697 of 2012]
Decided on: 10-04-2015
(b) U.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 – Section 9(2) r/w Rule 5, Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Complaint Rules, 1977 – Complaint – Validity – First complaint not addressed to Lokayukta – Reminder thereof, however, addressed to Lokayukta – Same amounts to complaint to Lokayukta – Further, belated affidavit accepted as contemplated by Rule 5 – Appellant replying to communications of Lokayukta – No infirmity in procedures. (Para 16)
(c) U.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 – Section 10(3) – Providing for discretion of Loakyukta to adopt appropriate procedure – Lokayukta deciding to get the allegations in the complaint investigated – Refusing appellant’s request for time – No prejudice caused to appellant as he had participated in the proceedings at every stage – Refusal of time no ground for interference by Supreme Court. (Para 17)
(d) U.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 – Section 10(3) r/w Third Schedule – Lokayukta recommending merely for an investigation as to whether a case for prosecution of the appellant is made out or not – Lokaykuta not acting beyond jurisdiction – Matter investigated and already under trial – Objection becoming wholly academic. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Lokayukta U.P. made certain recommendations against the appellant which were implemented.
The Appellant challenged the recommendations in writ petition which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Appeal lacks merit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 11th November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 62471 of 2011 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
3. The challenge in the writ petition, inter alia, was against the report dated 4th October, 2011 of the Lokayukta, U.P. containing the following recommendations:
“(1) The Charged Public Servant, Minister of Secondary Education, Shri Ranga Nath Mishra, as the sources of income of the properties earned by him from 2007 onwards are not known, therefore, for prosecution under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, criminal investigation be got done by an independent agency like C.B.C.I.D. or Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Commission, and his prosecution be considered to be initiated.
(2) On the basis of the illegal possession of the Gram Sabha land of Gat No.666 Mi/O.106 Hect. in Village Aurai, Bhadohi, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar, the proceedings be initiated against the charged Public Servant Shri Ranga Nath Mishra, under Section 122 of the Abolition of Zamindari Act, and the concerned Dy. District Collector should register the case and the aforesaid land of the Gram Sabha be ordered to be released from his possession.
(3) During the aforesaid criminal proceedings and release of the land from his possession, for taking independent action as per the Investigation Unit and as per the rules of the competent authority, the Charged Public Servant, Minister of Secondary Education, be removed from the portfolio of the Minister so that the aforesaid legal proceedings could be carried out independently.
(4) The Criminal Investigation be done through such an agency which can also investigate into the investments of such properties made in the State and outside the State.
(5) The compliance report in respect of the aforesaid recommendations be made available within a month.”
4. As the aforesaid recommendations of the Lokayukta, U.P. have been implemented and necessary action in terms thereof has been taken, the relief prayed for in this appeal has been truncated to a declaration that the aforesaid report dated 4th October, 2011 of the Lokayukta, U.P. is contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the U.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and that the said report suffers from vice of non-application of mind.
5. The brief facts antecedent to the report dated 4th October, 2011 of the Lokayukta, U.P. may now be conveniently taken note of at the outset.
It appears that the respondent No. 4 in the present appeal, Swami Nath Misra, had submitted an undated complaint to the Hon'ble President of India, Prime Minister of India, Governor of U.P., Lucknow and Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Income Tax Department, New Delhi demanding an enquiry in to the alleged acquisition of huge assets by the appellant who was then serving as a Cabinet Minister in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said complaint was reiterated by a reminder dated 27th August, 2010 which was, inter alia, addressed to the Lokayukta, U.P. A communication dated 18th October, 2010 was addressed to the appellant by the Secretary of the Lokayukta, U.P. intimating him that the Lokayukta, U.P. has decided to hold a preliminary enquiry into the complaint, a copy of which was forwarded to the appellant. The said letter dated 18th October, 2010 was followed by another letter dated 18th November, 2010. It appears that the 2nd communication (reminder) dated 27th August, 2010 sent by the complainant, inter alia, to the Lokayukta, U.P. was not accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant which apparently was filed later i.e. on 22nd December, 2010. This was done apparently when the appellant had demanded that a copy of such affidavit be made available to him. Thereafter, a letter dated 14th February, 2011 was sent by the office of the Lokayukta,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
