Point of law: It is well settled that this Court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in submission of charge sheet and then eventually in conviction or not. Only a prima-facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ingredients constituting the offence is required in order to see whether the F.I.R. requires to be investigated or deserves quashing. The ambit of investigation into the alleged offence is an independent area of operation and does not call for interference in the same except in rarest of rare cases.

JUDGMENT :

RAMESH SINHA, J.

1. The Court has convened through Video Conferencing.

2. Heard Sri. Ajay Pratap Singh ‘Vatsa’ learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Ankur Agarwal, challenging the First Information Report dated 01.01.2014 so far as it relates to the petitioner registered as F.I.R. No. 01 of 2014, under Sections 409/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioner is lease holder of mining in District Mirzapur. The State Government took a decision to construct Memorial and Parks in the city of Lucknow and NOIDA and for this purpose, a Committee comprising Managing Director of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. the Director of the Department of Geology and Mining and the Joint Director was constituted for making inspection in the Ahraura Region of District Mirzapur to verify as to whether sufficient quantity of pink sandstones were available or not. The said Committee, after due inspection, found the sufficient quantities of pink sandstones in the aforesaid area and, therefore, a Committee of seven officials of which three officers belonged to the U.P. Rajkiya Niram Nigam Ltd. and four belonging to the Geology Department conducted a survey and submitted its report. In pursuance thereof, a letter dated 13.07.2007 was sent by the Director, Geology and Mining, U.P. to the Managing Director of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. to the effect that it has been decided that a consortium of lease holders should be constituted for the purposes of entering into an agreement for the purposes of supply of sandstone of the required quantity and necessary steps were recommended to be taken for the aforesaid purpose. Thereafter, individual letters of intent for supply of Mirzapur sandstones were issued to the petitioner. On the basis of the said letter of intent of the State Government, the petitioner supplied requisite quantity of sandstone to the department and has also received the payment at the agreed rate and at that relevant time, there is no complaint or allegation regarding quality or quantity of material supplied by the petitioner to the State Government but after change of Government in Uttar Pradesh, the newly formed Government has instituted an inquiry in the matter and entrusted it to the U.P. Lok Ayukta to enquire into the allegations of corruption and irregularities during the period 2007 to 2011 as regards to supply of sandstone from District of Mirzapur, Sonbhadra, Bayana, Bharatpur/Jaipur (Rajasthan) and other districts.

5. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Lok Ayukta, without affording any opportunity of hearing, conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the State Government. He argued that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the finding recorded by the Lok Ayukta that the required quantity of sandstones was not supplied or the sandstone supplied was of an inferior quality nor the allegation that there is collusion between the petitioner and the officials of State Government as uniform and there was no difference whatsoever regarding the rates at which such supply was made by an individual lease holder. However, a notice dated 29.08.2013 and 20.09.2013 was served upon the petitioner, which was issued by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur to show cause as to why his mining leases be not cancelled and his name be not placed in the blacklist. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed Writ (C) No. 62139 of 2013, Ankur Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Others and other similarly situated lease holder has also filed Writ (C) No. 54197 of 2013, Panna Lal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, before this Court at Allahabad, in which interim protection has been granted