The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case calling for investigation, and the matter was directed to be investigated by the Enforcement Directorate due to national ramifications.

In the writ petition preferred by petitioner Amar Singh has mounted onslaught on the FIR dated 15.10.2009 registered at case crime no 458 of 2009 under section 420, 467, 471, 120 B IP, sections 7/8/9/13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 at police Station Babu Purwa Kanpur Nagar and sought quashing of the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

2. In the second petition preferred by petitioner Shiv Kant Tripathi, the relief sought in this petition is for a writ of mandamus directing Enforcement Directorate arrayed as respondent no 4 to take up the investigation of case crime no 458 of 2009 registered at PS Babu Purwa Distt Kanpur Nagar and investigate the same in accordance with Law attended with further relief of a writ of mandamus directing the Special Cell Economic offences Wing as also the Enforcement Directorate to submit such periodical reports as may be deemed fit as to the stage, status and manner of investigation to this Court and also for direction to complete the investigation within such period as may be directed by the Court.

3. The allegations in the FIR under challenge in writ petition preferred by petitioner Amar Singh, pertain to the period when the petitioner was the Chairman of the U.P Development Council in the year 2003. The office of Chairman was said to be equal in rank to a Cabinet Minister. The first part of the allegations substantially is that the petitioner while holding the office of Chairman, misused his official position and awarded various Government contracts worth thousands of crores to companies owned and controlled by him and he also received kick-backs in the form of commission. The second part of the allegation is that the petitioner indulged in money laundering business by creating a web of shell companies. It is alleged that the major share holders of M/S Pankaja Arts and Credit Private Limited and M/S Sarvottam Caps Limited is the wife of the petitioner and close family associate namely Sri Amtabh Bachchan, a noted cine artist and former member of Parliament. It is further alleged that in all there are six companies which are under the control of the petitioner but at the same time, they are not involved in any active business and further that as many as 41 companies merged with M/S Pankaja Arts and Credit Private Limited and M/S Sarvottam Caps Limited by orders of Kolkata High Court dated 31.12.2003 and 31.1.2005. It is further alleged that the aforesaid 41 Companies were shell companies with little or no business. It is further alleged that amalgamation process was a deception and by this process the companies in which the petitioner had controlling shares, were enriched by wealth of around 400 crores. By this reckoning, it is alleged that the petitioner came in possession of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and it is further alleged that it would thus be eloquent that the petitioner misused his position by indulging in money laundering business and for this purpose he conspired with other Directors, officials and statutory authorities.

4. Sri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunwar Sidharth Singh, appearing for petitioner Amar Singh, argued the matter at prolix length. On the other hand, Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, appearing for Shiv Kant Tripathi, petitioner in Writ Petition No 4909 of 2010 advanced his submissions at elaborate length. We have also heard Additional Solicitor General, Government Advocate and other counsel assisting them. We have also been taken through the materials on record in the course of arguments.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner namely, Amar Singh, while assailing the allegations in the FIR, has set out summary of own facts which are that the petitioner was born and had received his education at Calcutta and he set up his business in Calcutta as well. It