Back
2008(2) JLJ 281
Dipak Misra and Prakash Shrivastava, JJ.
Anil Bansal v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others
Writ Petition No.16646 of 2006 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 27.3.2008.
The petitioner describing himself a social activist, as pro bono publico, has preferred this public interest litigation averring that the respondent No.2, the Minister, Department of Revenue, has purchased large chunk of immovable properties after being elected to the Member of Legislative Assembly in the year 2003 and the sale-deeds have been executed after the election and that apart, he has also purchased number of properties in the names of his son and other relatives on many a guise. It is contended that he is a public servant under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") and hence, the Central Bureau of Investigation be commanded to hold an enquiry regarding acquisition of disproportionate assets by abusing the official position and to proceed against him as per law. [Para 1
Held: The total land purchased is 68,776 acres and the amount of consideration is Rs.80,83,100/- and stamp duty ofRs.7,34,680/ has been paid thereon for the purpose of registration. Thus, a total sum of Rs.88, 17,780/- has been spent. [Para 25
The respondent No.2 holds a public office. He has public accountability. A public figure unquestionably is accountable for his actions. He has to be guided by Rule of Law. It has been stated long back, however high one is, he is under the supremacy of law. The basic characteristics of Rule of Law do not make a distinction between the weakest and the mightiest. Maintenance of purity and sustenance of probity are the basic features of good public image. Anyone who occupies a high office must remember that he enjoys public power and is under obligation to exercise the same in public interest and bear the image which is expected of him in the public good. [Para 32
We are inclined to direct the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Bhopal to initiate a proceeding against the respondent No.2, a member of alleged HUE (2006)2 SCC 1 followed. 1989 JLJ 127 relied on. [Para 33
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- PIL -- allegations requiring keen scrutiny -- petition cannot be discarded on the ground of locus ‘standi. AIR 1993 SC 892, AIR 2004 SC 1576, (2005)3 SCC 91, (2005)1 SCC 590, (2006)6 SCC 180 and (2007)4 SCC 380 discussed. Writ Petition No.5064 of 1998 and AIR 2004 Jhar. 115 relied on. [Para 21
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && jkT; ea=h && yksd in /kkj.k djrk gS && laifÙk ds Ø; esa :-88]17]780@& [kpZ fd, x, && eq[; vk;qDr] vk;dj dks dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus dk funs‘k fn;k x;kA
;kph us Lo;a dk o.kZu lkekftd dk;ZdrkZ ds :i esa djrs gq, tufgr esa ;g izdFku djrs gq, yksd fgr eqdnek izLrqr fd;k gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø-2 ea=h] jktLo foHkkx us o"kZ 2003 esa fo/kku lHkk dk lnL; fuokZfpr gks tkus ds i‘pkr~ cgqr vf/kd LFkkoj laifÙk Ø; dh gS rFkk foØ;&foys[k fuokZpu ds i‘pkr~ fu"ikfnr fd, x, gSa rFkk blds vfrfjDr] mlus vius iq= vkSj vU; ukrsnkjksa ds uke ds os‘k esa Hkh cgqla[;d laifÙk Ø; dh gSa ladfFkr gS fd og Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼la{ksi ds fy, ^^vf/kfu;e**½ ds mica/kksa ds v/khu yksd lsod gS blfy, inh; fLFkfr dk nq:i;ksx dj vuuqikfrd vkfLr;k¡ vftZr djus ds laca/k esa tk¡p djus rFkk mlds fo:) fof/k ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, dsanzh; tk¡p C;wjks dks vkns‘k fn;k tk,A ¼iSjk 1
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Ø; dh xbZ dqy Hkwfe 68]776 ,dM+ gS rFkk izfrQy dh jde :-80]83]100@& gS vkSj jftLVªhdj.k ds iz;kstukFkZ ml ij :-7]34]680@& dk LVkai ‘kqYd lanÙk fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj] :-88]17]780@& dh dqy jkf‘k [kpZ dh xbZ gSA ¼iSjk 25
izR;FkhZ Ø-2 yksd in /kkj.k fd, gSA mldh turk ds izfr tokcnkjh gSA yksd O;fDrRo fuf‘pr :i ls vius d`R;ksa ds fy, tokcnkj gSA mls fof/klEer ‘kklu ls ekxZn‘kZu ysuk gksrk gSA ;g cgqr igys dgk x;k gS] dksbZ fdruh Hkh Å¡pkbZ ij D;ksa ugha gks] og fof/k ds vkf/kiR; ds v/khu gksrk gSA fof/klEer ‘kklu dh ewy fo‘ks"krk gS fd lcls nqcZy vkSj lcls egkcyh ds e/; dksbZ HksnHkko ugha gSA ‘kq)rk dk;e j[kuk vkSj lR;fu‘Bk dh iqf‘V djuk vPNh yksd Nfo ds ewy oSf’k"V~; gSaA Å¡pk in /kkj.k djus okys fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks Lej.k j[kuk gksxk fd og tu‘kfDr dk mi;ksx dj jgk gS vkSj og mls yksd fgr esa iz;qDr djus vkSj ,slh Nfo cuk, j[kus dh ck/;rk/khu gS tks yksd fgr esa mlls izR;kf‘kr gSA ¼iSjk 32
ge eq[; vk;qDr] vk;dj] Hkksiky dks izR;FkhZ Ø-2 ds fo:)] tks vfHkdfFkr fganw vfoHkDr dqVqac dk lnL; gS] dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus dk funs‘k nsus dh vksj izo`Ùk gSA ¼2006½2 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA 1989 ts ,y ts 127 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 33
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && yksd fgr eqdnek && vfHkdFkuksa dh lw{e laoh{kk vko‘;d && lqus tkus ds vf/kdkj ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk R;Dr ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 892] , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 1576] ¼2005½3 ,l lh lh 91] ¼2005½1 ,l lh lh 590] ¼2006½6 ,l lh lh 180 rFkk ¼2007½4 ,l lh lh 380 foosfprA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-5064 lu~ 1998 rFkk , vkb vkj 2004 >kj- 115 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 21
Misra, J... 1. The petitioner describing himself a social activist, as pro bono publico, has preferred this public interest litigation averring that the respondent No.2, the Minister, Department of Revenue, has purchased large chunk of immovable properties after being elected to the Member of Legislative Assembly in the year 2003 and the sale-deeds have been executed after the election and that apart, he has also purchased number of properties in the names of his son and other relatives on many a guise. It is contended that he is a public servant under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") and hence, the Central Bureau of Investigation be commanded to hold an enquiry regarding acquisition of disproportionate assets by abusing the official position and to proceed against him as per law.
2. The facts which are essential to be adumbrated are that the election to the Members of Legislative Assembly was held in the year 2003 and the respondent No.2 after being elected was appointed as the Minister of State, Department of Revenue. At the time of filing of nomination from the respondent No.2 had submitted an affidavit containing the details of movable and immovable properties and the deposits in the bank possessed by him and his family members. The said affidavit has been brought on record as Annexure P-1. It is set forth that after having been appointed as a Minister he has purchased immovable properties in his name, in the name of his family members and friends which is manifestly beyond his known sources of income and the properties are valued more than one crore and their valuation is patent from a bare perusal of the sale-deeds. A detailed chart has been given in the writ petition and the documents in support of the same have been brought on record as Annexures P-2 to P-10.
3. It is putforth that the said respondent has engaged himself in various illegal activities and pressurized various local authorities to do illegal acts. It is specifically urged that he has interfered in the functioning of Krishi Upaj Mandi in the guise of growth and development of market area which has really no connection with the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. It is alleged that a plot has been allotted in favour of his son Sandeep Patel for establishment of a petrol pump and similarly some of his close relatives have been allotted valuable plots in the area belonging to the market committee. It is further putforth that the said respondent by mis-using his official capacity has got allotted an E-type Bungalow on Harda-Indore Road belonging to the Revenue Department and the respondent No.2 has got huge amount spent for modification of the said Bungalow. A reference has been made to the reply of the Chief Minister stating that there is no provision for allotment of Government residence in favour of Members of Legislative Assembly in their home town. It is alleged that in the marriage of son of the second respondent enormous money has been spent in reception as more than 12000 cards were distributed and the daughter-in-law had received valuable gifts from him which was worth more than Rs.50 lacs. He has also abused his official position to get his photographs put on the gates installed at various places of Harda town. It is averred that the respondent No.2 has gathered huge amount of money during his tenure as a Member of Legislative Assembly and the Minister of State and he is to be made accountable for the same.
4. It is contended that in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 at the time of filing of nomination form the sources of income was set to be agricultural land in village Ratatalai wherein he has 1/4th share and some money kept in fixed deposits. It is also urged that he had taken loan for purchase of a jeep and not repaid the same. In this backdrop a prayer has been made which has been indicated hereinbefore.
5. A return has been filed by the respondent No.1, Central Bureau of Investigation stating, int
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
