Back
1997 Supreme(MP) 830
1998 (1) JLJ 168
A.K. Mathur, C.J. and S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
Gautam Bandopadhyay and another v. State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 1861 of 1997; Decided on 9.12.1997.
S.K. Gangele for petitioners; P.P. Rao with S.L. Saxena, Advocate General
and S.K. Agnihotri for respondent No.2; Smt. J. Choudhary for respondent
No.3; A.M. Mathur with R.K. Thakur and M.L. Jaiswal for respondent No.4;
S.C. Datt with Manish Datt for respondent No.5; K.S. Wadhwa for
respondent No.6; N.S. Kale with V.S. Shroti for respondent No.8.
Headnote:(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 -- S. 6 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 n S. 19 n purpose of sanction to prosecute n is to protect the honest public servant n if material collected is prima facie sufficient to establish case of corruption competent authority is duty bound to accord sanction. (1991) 3 SCC 655 and AIR 1993 SC 1435 followed. [Para 5
(2) Minister -- functions entrusted to minister n performed by officials employed in his department -- constitutionally the act or decision of officials is that of minister. AIR 1974 SC 2192 followed. [Para 16
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 197 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-S. 6 (1) (c) -- sanction for prosecution -- sanctioning authority -- shall be presumed to be fair -- it will act objectively. (1996) 4 SCC 472 followed. [Para 16
(4) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S.19 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 -- S.6 -- withholding of sanction for prosecution under -- reasons should be given -- it is more so when prosecution is recommended by Lokayukt who is retired chief justice. AIR 1948 PC 82 and 1964 (2) CrLJ 65 relied on. AIR 1979 SC 826 and AIR 1984 SC 684 distinguished. AIR 1952 SC 16 and AIR 1978 SC 851 followed. [Para 21 & 24
(5) Order -- passed in exercise of power under a statute -- cannot be challenged on ground of propriety or sufficiency -- yet liable to be quashed on the ground of mala fide, dishonesty or corrupt purpose. AIR 1967 SC 295 followed. [Para 26
(6) Lokayukt Tatha Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (M.P.)—S.3-- office of Lokayukt -- cannot be made toothless else would virtually amount to not creating such an institution. (1997) 9 SCC 42 followed. [Para 27
¼1½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 6 & Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 19 && vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh dk ç;kstu & bZekunkj yksd lsod dks lajf{kr djus dk gS && ;fn lax`ghr lkexzh Hkz"Vkpkj dk ekeyk LFkkfir djus ds fy, çFken`"V~;k i;kZIr gS rc l{ke çkf/kdkjh eatwjh nsus ds fy, drZO;kc) gSaA ¼1993½ 3 ,llh lh 655 rFkk , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 1435 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 15
¼2½ ea=h & ea=h dks U;Lr ÑR; & mlds foHkkx esa fu;ksftr in/kkfj;ksa }kjk fd, x, & lkafo/kkfud :i ls in/kkfj;ksa }kjk fd;k x;k dk;Z vFkok fofu‘p; ea=h dk gh gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 2192 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 197 & Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 6 ¼1½ ¼x½ & vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh & eatwjh nsus okyk çkf/kdkjh & mlds fu"i{k gksus dh mi/kkj.kk dh tk,xh & og oLrqfu"B :i ls dk;Z djsxkA ¼1996½ 4 ,l lh lh 472 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16
¼4½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 19 & Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1947 &/kkjk 6 & vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh fo/kkfjr dh tkuk & dkj.k fn, tkuk pkfg, & ;g rc vf/kd egRoiw.kZ gS tc vfHk;kstu dh yksdk;qDr }kjk flQkfj‘k dh xbZ gks tksfd lsokfuo`Ùk eq[; U;k;ewfrZ gksA , vkb vkj 1948 ih lh 82 rFkk 1964 ¼2½ lhvkj ,y ts 65 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 826 rFkk , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 684 çHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 16 rFkk , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 851 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 21 ,oa 24
¼5½ vkns‘k & dkuwu ds v/khu ‘kfDr ds ç;ksx esa ikfjr & vkSfpR; vFkok mi;qDrrk ds vk/kkj ij vk{ksfir ugha fd;k tk ldrk & rFkkfi nqHkkZo] csbZekuh vFkok Hkz"V ç;kstu ds vk/kkj ij vfHk[kaMuh; gSaA , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 295 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 26
¼6½ yksdk;qDr rFkk mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 3 & yksdk;qDr dk in & fu%‘kDr ugha cuk;k tk ldrk vU;Fkk oLrqr% ,slh laLFkk l`ftr ugha djus dh dksfV esa vk,xkA ¼1997½ 9 ,l lh lh 42 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 27
Mathur, C.J.--1. This is a Public Interest Litigation which has brought forth a serious and a debatable issue as to what value is to be attached to the recommendations of the Lokayukta in the matter of corruption in the high places.
2. Petitioners are public spirited persons and they have sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to give sanction for fiing a charge-sheet as proposed by the Special Police Establishment (for short hereinafter referred to as the SPE) Lokayukta before the Special Court against respondent No.4 Shri Pyarelal Kanwar, Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Madhya Pradesh and respondent No.5 Shri B.R. Yadav, Minister, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
3. There is a land situated in the Jabalpur township called Madhotal which was allotted to Jabalpur Motor Parts dealers' Welfare Association (for short hereinafter referred to as the Association) measuring 23,00,500 square feet for a consideration of Rs. 16,03,620/- on 16.6.1994. An agreement was entered into by the Collector Jabalpur on behalf of the respondent State. Copy of lease-deed has been placed on record as Annexure-P1. It is alleged that this land was given to the Association for a paltry sum of Rs. 16,03,620/- although the market rate of the said land in 1993, as per the guidelines issued by the Collector, was Rs. 120/- per square foot on the road side and Rs. 60/- per square foot on the other side. Therefore, it is alleged that even if it is taken to be Rs. 60/- per square feet, then too the total value of the land would be Rs. 13,80,00,300/- though if the market value is ascertained it would be around Rs. 30,00,00,000/- (Thirty crores rupees). It is therefore alleged that the State Government has been put to a loss of Rs. 13.50 crores as per the rate of the State Government and around Rs. 29.00 crores as per the market value.
4. It is alleged that some of the citizens of Jabalpur submitted a complaint before the Lokayukta, Madhya Pradesh with regard to registration of criminal cases against persons involved. Lokayukta ordered an enquiry and after the order of the Lokayukta, Shri P.P. Tiwari, legal Advisor in the Lokayukta Organisation, sent notices to various affected persons and also called for all the files. After receiving replies from the concerned persons, the Legal Advisor of the Lokayukta Organisation found a prima facie case against Shri Pyarelal Kanwar, Shri B.R. Yadav, Shri Hoshiyar Singh Ex-Revenue Secretary, Shri R.P. Bajpai, Shri R.S. Sirohe, Shri A.N. Asthana, Shri G.P. Singhal, Shri I.D. Khatri, Shri A.N. Tiwari, Shri S. Iqbal Hussain, Shri Subhash Dubey, Shri P.P. Singh, Shri S.P. Shukla and about 22 other Government Officers responsible for practising the fraud and causing loss to the Government.
5. Learned Lokayukta by his order dated 30.12.1996 held that the Deputy Chief Minister Shri Pyarelal Kanwar, Minister Shri B.R. Yadav, alongwith other officers were responsible for the aforesaid fraud and directed the SPE to register a criminal case and further directed investigation of the matter under section 4 of the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). Copy of order of the Lokayukta dated 30.12.1996 is on record as Annexure-P2. The learned Lokayukta further observed in his order that there was violation of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act and policy decisions/guidelines under section 23. Learned Lokayukta also observed that the reasons for allotment of land to the Association are not satisfactory and the decision of the Inter-Departmental Committee (hereinafter referred to as the IDC) was ignored. It was also observed that the decision for allotment of the land in the year 1984 was without jurisdiction because at that time, there was no application for allotment by the Association. Copy of order issued by the Additional Secretary dated 29.9.1984 with regard to allotment of the land is on record as Annexure-P3.
6. After the order passed by the learned Lokayukta
