To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi
Subject- Alleged
corruption in construction of new High Court building of Lucknow bench of
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the alleged role of a few Hon’ble Judges in
this
Your Lordship,
The
applicant, Dr Nutan Thakur, is a social activist, working among other things,
in the field of transparency and accountability in public life, including for
judicial accountability and transparency.
She presents
before you a matter where seriously allegations are being made against one or
more of the Hon’ble Judges of the Lucknow bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court and serious questions are being raised about the handling of the entire
set of affairs related with alleged corrupt practice in construction work of
the new building of the Lucknow bench of the Hon’ble High Court.
The matter even
came before the Hon’ble High Court when one Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu filed
a Writ Petition (M/B) No. - 2599 of 2014 (Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu vs The State
Of U.P And Ors.) for quashing FIR registered against him which was heard on 31/03/2014
when the bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Uma Nath Singh and Hon’ble Justice
Zaki Ullah found that the allegations relates to demand of bribe by respondent
no. 4, a Junior Engineer of the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam (UPRNN),
from contractor for clearing his payments in construction work of the new High
Court building.
On 01/04/2014, the
Hon’ble Court said that in view of repeated assertion on affidavit by the
petitioner that 30 % amount of the payment due is being demanded as kick back
to clear the bills and the Infrastructure Committee of the High Court is also
feeling disgusted with the allegations of rampant corruption in the
construction works of New High Court building and subordinate Courts premises
throughout the State, investigation by the local police may not serve the
purpose and it was thinking of handing over the investigation to CBI. The Court felt that the facts seem to state
that UPRNN is also fostering and promoting mafias, apart from indulging in
corruption with impunity.
The Hon’ble Court
made some very pertinent comments which seemed to involve members of the
Hon’ble High Court. It said-“Further, there is also a lot of murmuring among
the Judges of High Court, who have local roots about corruption, undue favour
in giving contracts/sub contracts and kick back etc” and “Besides, the
allegations that only such Contractors and sub-contractors are being given
jobs, who are related to people in power, be it executive or judiciary, also
create strong ground of suspicion about the quality of construction of new High
Court building as well as the buildings of subordinate judiciary” feeling that
handing over matter to CBI was needed because of the allegation of funds
illegally utilized or diverted for private/personal use like the one relating
to construction and maintenance of private buildings of persons, presently,
directly or indirectly, “positioned in the helm of affairs”.
The Hon’ble Court
said-“However, looking to serious consequence and fall out that might follow if
we direct inquiry by SIT or CBI or any other independent agency into the
alleged demand of bribe, passing of kick backs, diversion of funds, high
payment, pilferage of construction materials and showing favours in the
engagement of Contractor/sub contractors or suppliers of materials etc. etc.
relating to new High Court building and other buildings of subordinate courts,
we think it appropriate and thus reserve the order on the question of
investigation by C.B.I. or any other independent agency.”
Many things
suddenly started happening after this order where the bench reserved its order
about handing over investigation to CBI. A Civil Miscellaneous Application No.
38165 of 2014.was moved by UPRNN for expunging certain remarks made in the above
order.
This application
was heard almost immediately by the bench of Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza
and Hon’ble Justice Ashoka Pal Singh, which declined to hear the matter on
15/04/2014 saying that one of them, Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza, was a
member of the Committee which is monitoring the construction of new High Court
building, directing that the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Senior Judge/Chief
Justice by next date.
Meanwhile another
Application for intervention came from Shri Jaideep Mathur, Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Shishir Jain, who had nothing to do with this matter, in
support of application filed by UPRNN, who also seemed to be feeling hurt by
the comments made against UPRNN. A natural question that arises is here is-“Why
was Sri Mathur concerned about the adverse comments against UPRNN?” Shri Ijhar
Hussain, Assistant Government Advocate also filed an application along with an affidavit
of the Home Department, UP government to recall the order dated 01/04/2014.
The matter was heard
immediately on the next day by a bench consisting of Hon'ble Justice Sunil
Ambwani and Hon'ble Justice Devendra Pratap Singh. A perusal of the order shows
that this matter of adverse comments against UPRNN was treated to be of great
urgency at different levels because immediately after passing of order on
15/04/2014, on the same day the matter was nominated to another bench for the
matter to be heard on the next date at 2 PM. With due regards and utmost
humility it is kindly mentioned that this kind of alacrity is shown very
rarely, not even in many extremely important cases as well.
The bench took up
the matter on the Bench copy itself, “considering the importance of the matter”.
The bench felt that the order dated 01/04/2014 was mostly unrelated with the
issue raised in the petition, while agreeing that-“We also find that there are
some insinuations and remarks in the order with regard to Committees of Hon'ble
Judges of the Court, which have been entrusted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice the
task to look after the quality of constructions”. It referred
the entire matter to Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to hear
and decide the writ petition
Then a larger
bench consisting again of Hon'ble Justice Sunil Ambwani, Hon'ble Justice
Devendra Pratap Singh with Hon'ble Justice Arun Tandon was formed by the
Hon’ble Chief Justice which heard the matter on 28/04/2014.
This time an
application was made by Shri Ashok Pandey, Advocate supported by his affidavit,
for intervention. This Application, among other things raised the need for
hurry to constitute a new Bench in this matter. It
said at Para 8-“That the question is why a new bench was constituted to hear
the matter and why it was done so hurriedly and why the application for
intervention and modification moved by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam was not
directed to be placed before the bench which has reserved the order.”
At
Para 9 and 10 it said that when the matter was being heard by a new bench the
new state Law officer (an assistant of Sri Rishad Murtaza) made a statement before
the Hon’ble Court that Sri Rishad Murtaza has not made the statement which was
quoted by the previous bench saying that he gave his consent for CBI or SIT
enquiry, which means that either the Hon’ble Judges or Sri Rishad was wrong.
Possibly
the most important statement made in this application is at Para 15-“That one
more fact the applicant intends to bring on the record of the matter is that a
friend of mine Sri R.N.S. Chauhan advocate who is also a close friend of Sri
Imtiaz Murtaza J. informed me that some contractor approached him with a offer
of 25 lakh rupees in case he is able to manage a contract in his favor with the
Ashirvad /blessing of Sri Imtiaz Murtaza J. Sri R.N.S. Chauhan denied the offer
but even then later on he was informed that the same person has got the
contract. This shows that the contractors are moving around the High Court, the
resident of the judges and the resident of their nears and dears with huge
money for getting the contract. The question is why the judges are so involved
in the award of contract? Whether it is
judges work or it is work of the beaurocracy? The bribe which was offered to
Mr. R.N. S. Chauhan Advocate went to whom? How many such more contracts were
awarded and who received the bribe? On whose recommendations and directions the
contract of Civil Court and High Court building are being awarded?”
About
Sri Pande’s application, the three member bench said-“So far as the application of Shri Ashok Pandey is concerned, we request
him to consider to delete paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit” saying that
his application for intervention had not been considered as yet.
To the
best of the applicant’s knowledge, Sri Asok Pande openly refused in the Open
court to accept the request of the Hon’ble Court to delete Para 14 and 15, as
requested by the Hon’ble Court.
It is
clear from the above set of events that-
1.
Something seriously is
going wrong in the construction activity of the new High Court building of
Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court
2.
The general background of
construction work, quality, irregularities etc of various government
departments like PWD, government construction agencies like UP Rajkiya Nirman
Nigam (UPRNN) and their general reputation gives a very strong indication that prima-facie
what the Hon’ble Court said in its order dated 01/04/2014 might be correct
3.
Thus, other than the
technical and legal aspects involved in the matter about the jurisdiction of
the Bench consisting of Justice Umanth Singh and Justice Zaki Ulla to bring in
the issue of corruption in building of new High Court building, a general
public perception would be that there would definitely be such corruption
involved in the construction work and hence if the Hon’ble Court took
cognizance of the matter of corruption and initiated action, it was an appropriate
act, more so when the petitioner had made repeated
assertion on affidavit as well as in complaint that 30 % amount of the payment
due is being demanded as kick back to clear the bills
4.
Hence another Bench of the Hon’ble High
Court suddenly taking up the matter on the application of the alleged UPRNN put
up for deleting the adverse comments made against it, when it is commonly believed
that government agencies are said to be involved in such corrupt practices in
various constructions works, do tend to raise eyebrows
5.
The filing of applications by Sri
Jaideep Mathur and the Home Department, rather unconcerned with these comments,
to delete these statements only add to the curiosity and chaos
6.
This taking up of the application for
deletion of adverse comments in such a swift manner when the bench originally
hearing the matter had made some very serious statements pointing towards
serious alleged irregularities at various levels, definitely gives curious turn
to the entire matter, giving the matter an unwarranted suspicious look, particularly
because the previous bench had made observations which somehow seemed to touch
even the members of Higher Judiciary, other than UPRNN
7.
Again, the quickness with which the
application of UPRNN was taken up on a day to day basis leave a large number of
questions to be answered, particularly when the application had been filed by
UPRNN for expunging the adverse remarks/observations made by this Court regarding
demand of bribe, passing of kick backs, diversion of funds etc., which hardly
seemed to need the kind of urgency seen here because any such remark was not
coming in the way of actual functioning of UPRNN
8.
The points raised by Sri Asok Pande at Para 9 and 10 about the statement of government advocate Sri
Rishad Murtaza is very important in
itself
9.
The most important point
raised by Sri Asok Pande is presented at Para 15 about advocate Sri Chauhan
talking of some contractor offering Rs. 25 lakh to manage a contract with
blessing of Hon’ble Justice Imtiaz Murtaza and later managing to get the
contract. This is a very serious allegation whose meaning and imputations the
applicant need not explain in so many words, which Your Lordship can very well
understand, considering the fact that Hon’ble
Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza is the head of the Infrastructure Committee of the Hon’ble High Court, supervising the
construction works
10.
Incidentally another fact
to be noted is that Sri Rishad Murtaza, about whom Sri Pande said that he
denied the statement of the previous bench, is also a close relative of Justice
Imtiyaz Murtaza.
Summing it up-
1.
If what Sri Pande has said
in the application is incorrect, then it is a direct allegation against a few
Hon’ble High Court Judges and criminal contempt Sri Pande shall be initiated
against him for having maligned the Hon’ble High Court and its Hon’ble Judges
2.
If whatever Sri Pande has
alleged in the application are true, then it is a very serious matter indeed
The
only way the entire truth can be found is through an administrative enquiry or
a police enquiry and hence the applicant prays as follows-
PRAYER
(A)
If Your Lordship think it
appropriate, the entire matter may be entrusted to CBI for its detailed enquiry
as regards the entire set of events or Your Lordship may also order an
administrative enquiry by one or more Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to arrive at the truth as regards the entire matter
It is
most humbly prayed that leaving the matter as it is and not taking any action
in this matter would definitely prove fatal to the honour, dignity and respect
to the higher judiciary, as can be easily understood from the contents of the
matter and the allegations made in Sri Asok pande’s application.
Lt No- NT/SC/HCB Your
sincerely,
Dated- 09/05/2014
(Dr Nutan Thakur)
5/426, Viram Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
# 094155-34525
nutanthakurlko@gmail.com
Dated- 09/05/2014
(Dr Nutan Thakur)
5/426, Viram Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
# 094155-34525
nutanthakurlko@gmail.com
Enclosure-
All the relevant documents including the various orders passed by the Hon’ble
High Court in this matter and the application presented by Sri Ashok Pande
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Zaki Ullah Khan,J.
Order (Oral)
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
The Registrar of this Court shall file complete details of contractors as well as the officers/staff of U.P. State Nirman Nigam, who are engaged in the new High Court Building Construction Project in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
As the allegations relate to demand of bribe by respondent no. 4, a Junior Engineer of the Nigam, from contractor for clearing his payments, which ultimately resulted in a scuffle, we direct the Petitioner, respondent no.4, the Managing Director, U.P. State Nirman Nigam, S.O., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, to remain present in Court on the date fixed, in order to find out the truth. We are also informed that there may be heavy traffic Jams during the working hours of High Court. Thus, the Managing Director, U.P. State Nirman Nigam in addition to above shall also produce the records relating to fly overs and approach roads etc., if any, proposed to cope up with the problem.
We are also informed that the State Government has taken decision to run Metro Rail in Lucknow. Thus, the Officers of State Government assigned the job of working on the Lucknow Metro Rail Project shall also remain present in Court with the proposed plan regarding the laying of Metro Rail lines in Lucknow.
List the matter on 01.04.2014.
Order Date :- 31.3.2014
A. Katiyar
?Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Zaki Ullah Khan,J.
Order (Oral)
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
The Registrar of this Court shall file complete details of contractors as well as the officers/staff of U.P. State Nirman Nigam, who are engaged in the new High Court Building Construction Project in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
As the allegations relate to demand of bribe by respondent no. 4, a Junior Engineer of the Nigam, from contractor for clearing his payments, which ultimately resulted in a scuffle, we direct the Petitioner, respondent no.4, the Managing Director, U.P. State Nirman Nigam, S.O., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, to remain present in Court on the date fixed, in order to find out the truth. We are also informed that there may be heavy traffic Jams during the working hours of High Court. Thus, the Managing Director, U.P. State Nirman Nigam in addition to above shall also produce the records relating to fly overs and approach roads etc., if any, proposed to cope up with the problem.
We are also informed that the State Government has taken decision to run Metro Rail in Lucknow. Thus, the Officers of State Government assigned the job of working on the Lucknow Metro Rail Project shall also remain present in Court with the proposed plan regarding the laying of Metro Rail lines in Lucknow.
List the matter on 01.04.2014.
Order Date :- 31.3.2014
A. Katiyar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
BENCH
Court No.-1
Case:- MISC.BENCH No.- 2599 of 2014
Petitioner:- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent:- The State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy, Home Lucknow and Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner:- Digvijai Singh
Respondent Counsel:- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh, J.
Hon'ble Zaki Ullah Khan, J.
Order (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed for quashment of F.I.R. dated 15.03.2014, registered vide Case Crime No. 59 of 2014, under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, and for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the police authorities from arresting the petitioner.
It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner had submitted a complaint on 15.03.2014 at about 3.00 p.m., against one Rajendra Singh Yadav, Junior Engineer (respondent no.4), at the police station-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, but the police did not register F.I.R. till the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner also sent the copy of complaint through registered post to Principal Secretary (Home), District Magistrate, Lucknow and Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and Chief Election Commissioner, U.P. for appropriate action/orders. Thereafter, on 21.03.2014, vide registered post, the petitioner submitted application to High Court on administrative side vide Annexures 6 & 7 herein. As per allegations made by the petitioner, the instant F.I.R. is a counter blast to the aforesaid complaint made by him. The relevant extract of the complaint submitted by petitioner in Hindi, is as:
"eSa fnus'k dqekj flag mQZ lksuw flag fuoklh xzke o iksLV& fl?kkSVh Fkkuk mejh csxexat tuin xks.Mk dk jgus okyk gWwA vius jksth&jksVh ds fy, y[kuÅ esa fuekZ.kk/khu ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ifjlj esa ih0vkj0MCyw ds :i esa jk0fu0fu0 ;wfuV&2 esa ts0bZ0 Jh jktsUnz flag ;kno ds vUnj dk;Z dj jgk gWwA esjs }kjk djk;s x;s dk;ksZ dk Hkqqxrku dk estjesUV ,d&nks ekg iwoz gks x;k Fkk ftl ij ;wfuV&2 ds lkjs l{ke vf/kdkjh ts0bZ0] vkj0bZ0] ih0,u0 ,oa ,dkmUVsV ds }kjk psd dj isesUV gsrq ikl dj fn;k x;k flQZ psd cukuk ckdh Fkk] mlh oDr ts0bZ0 jktsUnz flag ;kno }kjk isesUV fd;s tk jgs /kujkf'k dk 30 izfr'kr deh'ku ekaxk] ftldks nsus ls eSus euk dj fn;kA rc jktsUnz flag us dgk 30 izfr'kr deh'ku ugh nksxss rks isesUV ugh gksus nwaxk rFkk ogka ls ekiiqfLrdk ¼,e0ch0½ ysdj okil pys x;sA
blds i'pkr eSus lkjh ckr bl ;wfuV&2 ds ifj;kstuk izcU/kd dks crk;k rks mUgksaus vk'oklu fn;k fd rqe ijs'kku er gks] rqEgkjk lkjk Hkqxrku gks tk;sxkA fnukWd 4 ekpZ 2014 dks bl estjesUV dk iwjk Hkqxrku u djds FkksM+k lk Hkkx ,MokUl isesUV ds :Ik esa dj fn;k x;k rFkk dgk x;k fd 'ks'k Hkqxrku gksyh ls igys dj fn;k tk;sxkA fnukWad 15-3-2014 le; yxHkx 2%30 cts fnu esa tc 'ks'k Hkqxrku ysus vkfQl igqWpk rc ts0bZ0 jktsUnz flag ;kno us dgk fd lksuw flag tc rd rqe esjk 30 izfr'kr deh'ku ,MokUl esa ugh nksxs rc rd rqEgkjk Qkbuy isesUV ugh d:axkaA fQj eSus cksyk] lkgc tc eSus dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk vkids }kjk estjesUV Hkh gks pqdk gS rks vkidks isesUV fu;ekuqlkj djuk iMs+xkA vxj vki ugh djsaxs rks ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds jftLV~ªkj ,oa izcU/k funs'kd] jk0fu0fu0fy0 y[kuÅ ds ;gka tkdj f'kdk;r d:axkA rc muds rFkk muds lkFk ekStwn nks yksxks }kjk eka&cgu dh Hkn~nh&Hkn~nh xkfy;ka nh tkus yxh vkSj mijksDr yksxks }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd esjs vUnj esa cgqr ls ekfQ;k Bsdsnkj dk;Z dj jgs gS vkSj eS cgqr ls vijkf/k;ksa dks tkurk gWwa rc izkFkhZ }kjk muls ;g dgk x;k fd xkyh D;ksa ns jgs gks mijksDr yksx ,d lkFk gksdj izkFkhZ dks FkIiM+ksa ls ekjus ihVus yxs vkSj tsc ls :i;k 15500@& Hkh Nhu fy;kA izkFkhZ ds 'kksj epkus ij t;izdk'k flag ,oa jfoUnz flag rFkk cgqr ls yksx vk x;sA yksxksa ds chp cpko djus ij mijksDr yksxksa us izkFkhZ dks NksM+ fn;k vkSj tkrs&tkrs mijksDr yksx ;g dg x;s fd ljdkj esjh gS rqedks tgka tkuk gks tkvksa] eS rqEgkjk Hkqxrku ugh d:WxkA mijksDr yksxks }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd tkvks rqe mUgh yksxksa ls isesUV djok yks rFkk rqEgkjs }kjk fd;s x;s dk;Z dk eki iqfLrdk dk iUuk ,oa Qkby QkM+ nwaxk rFkk mijksDr yksxksa }kjk izkFkhz dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh Hkh nh gSA"
When the matter was listed for the first time on 31.03.2014, learned counsel for both parties, and more prominently, Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned Government Advocate, repeatedly submitted that the allegation being related to demand of bribe by a Junior Engineer of U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, a Government Construction Agency, that has been assigned the job of construction of New High Court building at Lucknow, and the buildings of subordinate Courts at various places in the State be enquired into by an independent agency under the supervision of this Bench. It is more so because under the orders passed by a Bench headed by one of us (Uma Nath Singh, J.) the Building funds were allocated and released and the construction works commenced with undertaking to complete within the time frame by the end of 2014 itself. Some of such orders passed by this Bench in Writ Petition No.10089 of 2010 (MB)(PIL) [Oudh Bar Association of High Court, Lucknow Bench Lucknow v. State of U.P. and others] read as:
"Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Order (Oral)
Learned Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted time till tomorrow to find out the reasons of delay in starting the work after revised DPR was submitted.
List this matter tomorrow i.e. 10.2.2012.
Order Date :- 9.2.2012
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Order (Oral)
Shri S.K. Kalia, learned senior counsel, and Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel, appear for petitioner. Learned Advocate General and learned Chief Standing Counsel appear for respondents State. Shri I.H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India puts in appearance on behalf of Union of India.
We have heard learned counsel for parties.
Learned Advocate General informed the Court that the revised DPR has been received in the State Government and the matter is being sent to the concerned Committees, namely, Project Formulation & Appraisal Department (PFAD) and Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) for approval. Learned Advocate General also submitted on instruction from the Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., who is present in Court, that the Committee would process the matter and complete the procedural formalities on priority basis.
List the matter on 17.02.2012.
Learned State Counsel shall keep the official file ready for perusal of the Court.
Order Date :- 10.2.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Order (Oral)
Pursuant to our order dated 10.02.2012 directing the respondent State to produce the original file with office noting about the progress towards release of fund, which is said to have already been sanctioned, the Chief Standing Counsel produced the records. Sadly, the note-sheet is thoroughly disappointing and it only shows that the matter has not progressed any further and rather it gives an impression that this project, after years of exercise, has not earned any upgradation in priority list of the government. Probably it still continues to be the lowest priority despite our last order dated 10.02.2012, which on reproduction would read as:
"Shri S.K. Kalia, learned senior counsel, and Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel, appear for petitioner. Learned Advocate General and learned Chief Standing Counsel appear for respondents State. Shri I.H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India puts in appearance on behalf of Union of India.
We have heard learned counsel for parties.
Learned Advocate General informed the Court that the revised DPR has been received in the State Government and the matter is being sent to the concerned Committees, namely, Project Formulation & Appraisal Department (PFAD) and Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) for approval.
Learned Advocate General also submitted on instruction from the Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., who is present in Court, that the Committee would process the matter and complete the procedural formalities on priority basis.
List the matter on 17.02.2012.
Learned State Counsel shall keep the official file ready for perusal of the Court."
Over and above all, as aforesaid, we are shocked and surprised that in complete derogation of our order, a plea is being taken that for processing of the file in terms of earlier order, clearance of Election Commission would be required. We fail to understand as to how an order of any authority having bearing on the subject matter situated within the territory of U.P. would come on the way of implementation of judicial orders passed by the highest Court of State and for that matter, even the orders passed by our subordinate judicial and quasi-judicial authorities unless such orders are set aside/suitably modified by the higher judicial forum. It need not be reiterated that all orders administrative or judicial passed by authorities within the jurisdiction of this Court are a subject to judicial review by this Court and thus any judicial order passed by this Court has to be enforced irrespective of any directive of any other authority, constitutional or otherwise, unless the judicial order is set aside or modified. Thus, irrespective of the clamping of Model Election Code of Conduct or issuance of any direction by the Election Commission, the implementation of judicial orders is not to wait and any order passed by the Commission shall only be subservient to the judicial orders passed by this Court or the subordinate courts. Thus, we direct the respondents to complete all the exercise, as required vide our earlier order, and also the clearance of funds before the next date of hearing.
List on 24.02.2012.
At this stage, Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and tendors unconditional apology with undertaking in terms of instructions received that without disclosing the procedure to be adopted for completing the exercise as directed, he would come with an action taken report to the satisfaction of the Court.
Order Date :- 17.2.2012
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Order (Oral)
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Sri J.N. Mathur at the very outset, on the basis of instructions received from Principal Secretary, P.W.D., Government of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the construction of building in question has already started. This statement is also supported by Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam.
Learned Additional Advocate General assured that the requisite funds would be readily available for release on demand by the construction Agency.
In reply to a query as to why it is not proposed to raise the construction from all points instead of concentrating on one block at a time, so that it is completed within short period, Sri Mathur submitted that the same can also be done, if it is so directed.
In view of all the aforesaid, it would be expedient to direct that the construction Agency shall start the construction from all points simultaneously in order to avoid unnecessary delay.
List the matter on 13.3.2012. The Registry shall show the name of Sri Shishir Jain as the counsel for Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam.
The respondents shall inform about the status of construction and other related developments on the next date of hearing on a short affidavit.
Order Date :- 28.2.2012
---
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam prays for and is granted ten days' time to prepare and produce complete BAR chart indicating the time likely to be taken in completing the project.
List the matter on 26.03.2012. The Nigam shall also indicate the amount of work done on day to day basis. Besides, it would also be appropriate to direct presence of some responsible officer of the Nigam during the court proceedings for assistance.
Order Date :- 13.3.2012
---
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Sri S.P.Gupta, learned Advocate General, submitted that towards compliance of our order dated 13.03.2012, an affidavit has been prepared which would be filed within two days.
List the matter on 02.04.2012.
Order Date :- 26.3.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Learned Additional Advocate General Sri Z.Y. Jilani, appearing for State and learned counsel Sri Shishir Jain representing U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. pray for and are granted time till Monday i.e. 13.08.2012 to submit complete information as to whether the construction work is progressing as per the Bar chart.
List the matter on 13.08.2012 at Sl. No. 1 in cause list.
Order Date :- 6.8.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Learned Addtional Advocate General Sri Z.Y. Jilani states that an affidavit on behalf of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. is being filed wherein averment has been made that the construction work is progressing as per Bar Chart already submitted on affidavit before this Court.
On request, list the matter on 17.9.2012.
Officers who are present today, shall remain present on the next date.
Order Date :- 13.8.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
U.P. Nirman Nigam shall file an affidavit giving details of work completed in terms of the undertaking given before the Court.
List the matter on 04.12.2012.
Order Date :- 20.9.2012
---
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Affidavit containing progress report as well as status of construction filed in Court is taken on record.
Learned counsel shall file progress report on affidavit to show that the construction is being made in accordance with and within the premises of Bar Chart. Time limit as given to the Court namely December 2014 by learned Advocate General is the outer limit but all such efforts to construct and hand over the building early would deserve high appreciation of the Court.
List the matter on 05.02.2013.
Order Date :- 4.12.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
The report regarding status of construction as per BAR Chart filed in Court is taken on record.
List the matter on 05.03.2013.
Order Date :- 5.2.2013 "
In the aforesaid background as this Court was seized of the matter, upon request of learned counsel for parties, the following order was passed on 31.03.2014:
"We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
The Registrar of this Court shall file complete details of contractors as well as the officers/staff of U.P. State Nirman Nigam, who are engaged in the new High Court Building Construction Project in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
As the allegations relate to demand of bribe by respondent no. 4, a Junior Engineer of the Nigam, from contractor for clearing his payments, which ultimately resulted in a scuffle, we direct the Petitioner, respondent no. 4, the Managing Director, U.P. State Nirman Nigam, S.O., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, to remain present in Court on the date fixed, in order to find out the truth. We are also informed that there may be heavy traffic Jams during the working hours of High Court. Thus, the Managing Director, U.P. State Nirman Nigam in addition to above shall also produce the records relating to fly overs and approach roads etc., if any, proposed to cope up with the problem.
We are also informed that the State Government has taken decision to run Metro Rail in Lucknow. Thus, the Officers of Sate Government assigned the job of working on the Lucknow Metro Rail Project shall also remain present in Court with the proposed plan regarding the laying of Metro Rail lines in Lucknow.
List the matter on 01.04.2014."
Now, towards our aforesaid order dated 31.3.2014, Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Managing Director, Lucknow, Metro Rail Corporation, Shri Pravin Kumar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., the petitioner as well as Junior Engineer Shri Rajendra Yadav and Station Officer, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, are present in Court.
It is submitted on behalf of the State that the impugned F.I.R. has been registered on the complaint of Junior Engineer, Rajendra Singh Yadav against the petitioner, who is a sub-contractor. Instead of passing any direction for investigation by any other agency, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, may be directed to look into the correctness of cross allegations and submit a report. The U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, is headed by Shri R.N.Yadav, Managing Director, who states that Sri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Junior Engineer, against whom there is allegation of demand of bribe is presently under transfer from this project and till the investigation is completed, he may not be assigned any job.
In the facts and circumstances set out hereinabove, particularly, repeated assertion on affidavit as well as in complaint by the petitioner that 30 % amount of the payment due is being demanded as kick back to clear the bills and the Infrastructure Committee of the High Court, which alone is supervising the construction works is also feeling disgusted with the allegations of rampant corruption in the construction works of New High Court building and subordinate Courts premises throughout the State by the State Construction Agencies, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by handing over the investigation to the local police. One such similar instance where this Bench had to interfere on judicial side, when the construction agency wanted to introduce local dealers for supply of ready mix concrete is reflected in the following order dated 5.3.2013:
"Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
A complaint is made during the course of hearing by the President, Oudh Bar Association, on the basis of inter se correspondence between the agencies involved in the construction project of New High Court Building at Gomti Nagar Lucknow that three Cement Companies, namely, M/s. R.M.C. Readymix India, M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited and M/s A.C.C. Concrete Limited, despite a resolution by the Infrastructure Committee headed by a High Court Judge have declined to supply the ready mix concrete without any valid reason and are insisting upon supply of materials only through their local dealers having criminal background.
It is also alleged that these dealers are presently lodged in jail in an FIR lodged for causing assault to Storekeeper and some labourers who are working in the construction project. It is not clear as to on what ground the cement companies have declined to supply the ready mix concrete (RMC) and as to why there is insistence upon supply of the material only through the local dealers with the criminal background. Thus, looking to the background particularly the present law and order position in the State, induction of criminals in the affairs connected with the construction of New High Court Building needs a thorough facts-finding inquiry before we proceed to pass appropriate order in order to plug the loose entry points, if any, for future.
In this regard as per our oral directions, Principal Secretary (Home), Sri R.M. Srivastava, Director General of Police, U.P. Sri A.C. Sharma, Principal Secretary, Industries, Sri Sanjay Agarwal and other officers of Rajkiya Nirman Nigam are present in Court.
On inquiry about the names of senior police officers of Crime Investigation Department (CID) (from the latest transfer lists of such officers), who are known for honest and independent functioning, we find that among such police officers is one lady IPS officer namely, Smt. Laxmi Singh, but we are informed by Principal Secretary (Home) Shri R.M. Srivastava, that though her name had been included in the transfer list but she has been again shifted to Noida for some obvious genuine reason. Mr. Srivastava also states that he has signed her transfer order to Noida only yesterday.
But that nevertheless, since the officer is said to have impeccable background and is known for impartial and independent functioning, we deem it expedient to direct that without disturbing her latest posting in PAC at Noida, supposedly shifted for obviously genuine reasons she shall soon after joining at an early date at Noida start the facts-finding inquiry according to her convenience within a week and submit the report within 15 days thereafter to this Court. In case, she has any serious personal inconvenience, she may inform the Court by filing appropriate application and in that case, the Court may consider to assign the inquiry to some other deserving police officer. The area of inquiry shall be to find out the reasons for declining supply of RMC by the aforesaid cement companies and the background and person/agency responsible for the induction/planting of local dealers with criminal background in the construction project in question. Besides, as the conduct of the cement companies deserves to be viewed seriously and needs to be dealt with firmly by issuing appropriate directions like, to cancel their licence or black list them, inquiry officer shall also probe into such conduct. Moreover, till the inquiry report is submitted to the Court and further appropriate directions are issued, these cement companies shall ensure uninterrupted direct supply of the ready mix concrete (RMC) to the construction agencies so that the construction continues and the costs do not escalate.
Let copy of this order be served upon the chairmen of the aforesaid cement companies; the officers, who were present in Court, learned counsel for parties, and Smt.Laxmi Singh, IPS by the Registrar of this Court at the earliest by fax for information and compliance.
List the matter with inquiry report on 21.03.2013.
Further appearance of Shri R.M. Srivastava, Principal Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police, U.P., Shri A.C. Sharma is dispensed with until further orders. However, Principal Secretary, Industries Shri Sanjay Aggarwal and other officers connected with the construction project shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
Order Date :- 5.3.2013"
Further, there is also a lot of murmuring among the Judges of High Court, who have local roots about corruption, undue favour in giving contracts/sub contracts and kick back etc.
Moreover, as it also appears from the complaint of petitioner that the U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, through its Engineering Wing is also fostering and promoting mafias, apart from indulging in corruption with impunity, we think it expedient to consider the submissions that such matter may require thorough investigation. Besides, the allegations that only such Contractors and sub-contractors are being given jobs, who are related to people in power, be it executive or judiciary, also create strong ground of suspicion about the quality of construction of new High Court building as well as the buildings of subordinate judiciary, already constructed or are still under construction at various places in U.P.
As noticed hereinabove, since the Engineers are also claiming patronage of the State Government in earning illegal money, this Court may have n o option but to consider as to whether the investigation should be given to C.B.I. to find out the veracity of allegations as well as other areas where the funds allocated for construction of High Court buildings and buildings of subordinate courts in the State have been illegally utilized or diverted for private/personal use like the one relating to construction and maintenance of private buildings of persons, presently, directly or indirectly, positioned in the helm of affairs.
Thus, we stay the arrest of petitioner in the aforesaid case crime.
However, looking to serious consequence and fall out that might follow if we direct inquiry by SIT or CBI or any other independent agency into the alleged demand of bribe, passing of kick backs, diversion of funds, high payment, pilferage of construction materials and showing favours in the engagement of Contractor/sub contractors or suppliers of materials etc. etc. relating to new High Court building and other buildings of subordinate courts, we think it appropriate and thus reserve the order on the question of investigation by C.B.I. or any other independent agency.
Order Date:-1.4.2014
Irfan
Court No.-1
Case:- MISC.BENCH No.- 2599 of 2014
Petitioner:- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent:- The State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy, Home Lucknow and Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner:- Digvijai Singh
Respondent Counsel:- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh, J.
Hon'ble Zaki Ullah Khan, J.
Order (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed for quashment of F.I.R. dated 15.03.2014, registered vide Case Crime No. 59 of 2014, under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, and for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the police authorities from arresting the petitioner.
It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner had submitted a complaint on 15.03.2014 at about 3.00 p.m., against one Rajendra Singh Yadav, Junior Engineer (respondent no.4), at the police station-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, but the police did not register F.I.R. till the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner also sent the copy of complaint through registered post to Principal Secretary (Home), District Magistrate, Lucknow and Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and Chief Election Commissioner, U.P. for appropriate action/orders. Thereafter, on 21.03.2014, vide registered post, the petitioner submitted application to High Court on administrative side vide Annexures 6 & 7 herein. As per allegations made by the petitioner, the instant F.I.R. is a counter blast to the aforesaid complaint made by him. The relevant extract of the complaint submitted by petitioner in Hindi, is as:
"eSa fnus'k dqekj flag mQZ lksuw flag fuoklh xzke o iksLV& fl?kkSVh Fkkuk mejh csxexat tuin xks.Mk dk jgus okyk gWwA vius jksth&jksVh ds fy, y[kuÅ esa fuekZ.kk/khu ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ifjlj esa ih0vkj0MCyw ds :i esa jk0fu0fu0 ;wfuV&2 esa ts0bZ0 Jh jktsUnz flag ;kno ds vUnj dk;Z dj jgk gWwA esjs }kjk djk;s x;s dk;ksZ dk Hkqqxrku dk estjesUV ,d&nks ekg iwoz gks x;k Fkk ftl ij ;wfuV&2 ds lkjs l{ke vf/kdkjh ts0bZ0] vkj0bZ0] ih0,u0 ,oa ,dkmUVsV ds }kjk psd dj isesUV gsrq ikl dj fn;k x;k flQZ psd cukuk ckdh Fkk] mlh oDr ts0bZ0 jktsUnz flag ;kno }kjk isesUV fd;s tk jgs /kujkf'k dk 30 izfr'kr deh'ku ekaxk] ftldks nsus ls eSus euk dj fn;kA rc jktsUnz flag us dgk 30 izfr'kr deh'ku ugh nksxss rks isesUV ugh gksus nwaxk rFkk ogka ls ekiiqfLrdk ¼,e0ch0½ ysdj okil pys x;sA
blds i'pkr eSus lkjh ckr bl ;wfuV&2 ds ifj;kstuk izcU/kd dks crk;k rks mUgksaus vk'oklu fn;k fd rqe ijs'kku er gks] rqEgkjk lkjk Hkqxrku gks tk;sxkA fnukWd 4 ekpZ 2014 dks bl estjesUV dk iwjk Hkqxrku u djds FkksM+k lk Hkkx ,MokUl isesUV ds :Ik esa dj fn;k x;k rFkk dgk x;k fd 'ks'k Hkqxrku gksyh ls igys dj fn;k tk;sxkA fnukWad 15-3-2014 le; yxHkx 2%30 cts fnu esa tc 'ks'k Hkqxrku ysus vkfQl igqWpk rc ts0bZ0 jktsUnz flag ;kno us dgk fd lksuw flag tc rd rqe esjk 30 izfr'kr deh'ku ,MokUl esa ugh nksxs rc rd rqEgkjk Qkbuy isesUV ugh d:axkaA fQj eSus cksyk] lkgc tc eSus dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk vkids }kjk estjesUV Hkh gks pqdk gS rks vkidks isesUV fu;ekuqlkj djuk iMs+xkA vxj vki ugh djsaxs rks ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds jftLV~ªkj ,oa izcU/k funs'kd] jk0fu0fu0fy0 y[kuÅ ds ;gka tkdj f'kdk;r d:axkA rc muds rFkk muds lkFk ekStwn nks yksxks }kjk eka&cgu dh Hkn~nh&Hkn~nh xkfy;ka nh tkus yxh vkSj mijksDr yksxks }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd esjs vUnj esa cgqr ls ekfQ;k Bsdsnkj dk;Z dj jgs gS vkSj eS cgqr ls vijkf/k;ksa dks tkurk gWwa rc izkFkhZ }kjk muls ;g dgk x;k fd xkyh D;ksa ns jgs gks mijksDr yksx ,d lkFk gksdj izkFkhZ dks FkIiM+ksa ls ekjus ihVus yxs vkSj tsc ls :i;k 15500@& Hkh Nhu fy;kA izkFkhZ ds 'kksj epkus ij t;izdk'k flag ,oa jfoUnz flag rFkk cgqr ls yksx vk x;sA yksxksa ds chp cpko djus ij mijksDr yksxksa us izkFkhZ dks NksM+ fn;k vkSj tkrs&tkrs mijksDr yksx ;g dg x;s fd ljdkj esjh gS rqedks tgka tkuk gks tkvksa] eS rqEgkjk Hkqxrku ugh d:WxkA mijksDr yksxks }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd tkvks rqe mUgh yksxksa ls isesUV djok yks rFkk rqEgkjs }kjk fd;s x;s dk;Z dk eki iqfLrdk dk iUuk ,oa Qkby QkM+ nwaxk rFkk mijksDr yksxksa }kjk izkFkhz dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh Hkh nh gSA"
When the matter was listed for the first time on 31.03.2014, learned counsel for both parties, and more prominently, Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned Government Advocate, repeatedly submitted that the allegation being related to demand of bribe by a Junior Engineer of U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, a Government Construction Agency, that has been assigned the job of construction of New High Court building at Lucknow, and the buildings of subordinate Courts at various places in the State be enquired into by an independent agency under the supervision of this Bench. It is more so because under the orders passed by a Bench headed by one of us (Uma Nath Singh, J.) the Building funds were allocated and released and the construction works commenced with undertaking to complete within the time frame by the end of 2014 itself. Some of such orders passed by this Bench in Writ Petition No.10089 of 2010 (MB)(PIL) [Oudh Bar Association of High Court, Lucknow Bench Lucknow v. State of U.P. and others] read as:
"Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Order (Oral)
Learned Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted time till tomorrow to find out the reasons of delay in starting the work after revised DPR was submitted.
List this matter tomorrow i.e. 10.2.2012.
Order Date :- 9.2.2012
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Order (Oral)
Shri S.K. Kalia, learned senior counsel, and Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel, appear for petitioner. Learned Advocate General and learned Chief Standing Counsel appear for respondents State. Shri I.H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India puts in appearance on behalf of Union of India.
We have heard learned counsel for parties.
Learned Advocate General informed the Court that the revised DPR has been received in the State Government and the matter is being sent to the concerned Committees, namely, Project Formulation & Appraisal Department (PFAD) and Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) for approval. Learned Advocate General also submitted on instruction from the Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., who is present in Court, that the Committee would process the matter and complete the procedural formalities on priority basis.
List the matter on 17.02.2012.
Learned State Counsel shall keep the official file ready for perusal of the Court.
Order Date :- 10.2.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Order (Oral)
Pursuant to our order dated 10.02.2012 directing the respondent State to produce the original file with office noting about the progress towards release of fund, which is said to have already been sanctioned, the Chief Standing Counsel produced the records. Sadly, the note-sheet is thoroughly disappointing and it only shows that the matter has not progressed any further and rather it gives an impression that this project, after years of exercise, has not earned any upgradation in priority list of the government. Probably it still continues to be the lowest priority despite our last order dated 10.02.2012, which on reproduction would read as:
"Shri S.K. Kalia, learned senior counsel, and Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel, appear for petitioner. Learned Advocate General and learned Chief Standing Counsel appear for respondents State. Shri I.H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India puts in appearance on behalf of Union of India.
We have heard learned counsel for parties.
Learned Advocate General informed the Court that the revised DPR has been received in the State Government and the matter is being sent to the concerned Committees, namely, Project Formulation & Appraisal Department (PFAD) and Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) for approval.
Learned Advocate General also submitted on instruction from the Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., who is present in Court, that the Committee would process the matter and complete the procedural formalities on priority basis.
List the matter on 17.02.2012.
Learned State Counsel shall keep the official file ready for perusal of the Court."
Over and above all, as aforesaid, we are shocked and surprised that in complete derogation of our order, a plea is being taken that for processing of the file in terms of earlier order, clearance of Election Commission would be required. We fail to understand as to how an order of any authority having bearing on the subject matter situated within the territory of U.P. would come on the way of implementation of judicial orders passed by the highest Court of State and for that matter, even the orders passed by our subordinate judicial and quasi-judicial authorities unless such orders are set aside/suitably modified by the higher judicial forum. It need not be reiterated that all orders administrative or judicial passed by authorities within the jurisdiction of this Court are a subject to judicial review by this Court and thus any judicial order passed by this Court has to be enforced irrespective of any directive of any other authority, constitutional or otherwise, unless the judicial order is set aside or modified. Thus, irrespective of the clamping of Model Election Code of Conduct or issuance of any direction by the Election Commission, the implementation of judicial orders is not to wait and any order passed by the Commission shall only be subservient to the judicial orders passed by this Court or the subordinate courts. Thus, we direct the respondents to complete all the exercise, as required vide our earlier order, and also the clearance of funds before the next date of hearing.
List on 24.02.2012.
At this stage, Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and tendors unconditional apology with undertaking in terms of instructions received that without disclosing the procedure to be adopted for completing the exercise as directed, he would come with an action taken report to the satisfaction of the Court.
Order Date :- 17.2.2012
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Order (Oral)
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Sri J.N. Mathur at the very outset, on the basis of instructions received from Principal Secretary, P.W.D., Government of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the construction of building in question has already started. This statement is also supported by Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam.
Learned Additional Advocate General assured that the requisite funds would be readily available for release on demand by the construction Agency.
In reply to a query as to why it is not proposed to raise the construction from all points instead of concentrating on one block at a time, so that it is completed within short period, Sri Mathur submitted that the same can also be done, if it is so directed.
In view of all the aforesaid, it would be expedient to direct that the construction Agency shall start the construction from all points simultaneously in order to avoid unnecessary delay.
List the matter on 13.3.2012. The Registry shall show the name of Sri Shishir Jain as the counsel for Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam.
The respondents shall inform about the status of construction and other related developments on the next date of hearing on a short affidavit.
Order Date :- 28.2.2012
---
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam prays for and is granted ten days' time to prepare and produce complete BAR chart indicating the time likely to be taken in completing the project.
List the matter on 26.03.2012. The Nigam shall also indicate the amount of work done on day to day basis. Besides, it would also be appropriate to direct presence of some responsible officer of the Nigam during the court proceedings for assistance.
Order Date :- 13.3.2012
---
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Sri S.P.Gupta, learned Advocate General, submitted that towards compliance of our order dated 13.03.2012, an affidavit has been prepared which would be filed within two days.
List the matter on 02.04.2012.
Order Date :- 26.3.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Learned Additional Advocate General Sri Z.Y. Jilani, appearing for State and learned counsel Sri Shishir Jain representing U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. pray for and are granted time till Monday i.e. 13.08.2012 to submit complete information as to whether the construction work is progressing as per the Bar chart.
List the matter on 13.08.2012 at Sl. No. 1 in cause list.
Order Date :- 6.8.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Learned Addtional Advocate General Sri Z.Y. Jilani states that an affidavit on behalf of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. is being filed wherein averment has been made that the construction work is progressing as per Bar Chart already submitted on affidavit before this Court.
On request, list the matter on 17.9.2012.
Officers who are present today, shall remain present on the next date.
Order Date :- 13.8.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
U.P. Nirman Nigam shall file an affidavit giving details of work completed in terms of the undertaking given before the Court.
List the matter on 04.12.2012.
Order Date :- 20.9.2012
---
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Affidavit containing progress report as well as status of construction filed in Court is taken on record.
Learned counsel shall file progress report on affidavit to show that the construction is being made in accordance with and within the premises of Bar Chart. Time limit as given to the Court namely December 2014 by learned Advocate General is the outer limit but all such efforts to construct and hand over the building early would deserve high appreciation of the Court.
List the matter on 05.02.2013.
Order Date :- 4.12.2012
----
Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
The report regarding status of construction as per BAR Chart filed in Court is taken on record.
List the matter on 05.03.2013.
Order Date :- 5.2.2013 "
In the aforesaid background as this Court was seized of the matter, upon request of learned counsel for parties, the following order was passed on 31.03.2014:
"We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
The Registrar of this Court shall file complete details of contractors as well as the officers/staff of U.P. State Nirman Nigam, who are engaged in the new High Court Building Construction Project in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
As the allegations relate to demand of bribe by respondent no. 4, a Junior Engineer of the Nigam, from contractor for clearing his payments, which ultimately resulted in a scuffle, we direct the Petitioner, respondent no. 4, the Managing Director, U.P. State Nirman Nigam, S.O., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, to remain present in Court on the date fixed, in order to find out the truth. We are also informed that there may be heavy traffic Jams during the working hours of High Court. Thus, the Managing Director, U.P. State Nirman Nigam in addition to above shall also produce the records relating to fly overs and approach roads etc., if any, proposed to cope up with the problem.
We are also informed that the State Government has taken decision to run Metro Rail in Lucknow. Thus, the Officers of Sate Government assigned the job of working on the Lucknow Metro Rail Project shall also remain present in Court with the proposed plan regarding the laying of Metro Rail lines in Lucknow.
List the matter on 01.04.2014."
Now, towards our aforesaid order dated 31.3.2014, Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Managing Director, Lucknow, Metro Rail Corporation, Shri Pravin Kumar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., the petitioner as well as Junior Engineer Shri Rajendra Yadav and Station Officer, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, are present in Court.
It is submitted on behalf of the State that the impugned F.I.R. has been registered on the complaint of Junior Engineer, Rajendra Singh Yadav against the petitioner, who is a sub-contractor. Instead of passing any direction for investigation by any other agency, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, may be directed to look into the correctness of cross allegations and submit a report. The U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, is headed by Shri R.N.Yadav, Managing Director, who states that Sri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Junior Engineer, against whom there is allegation of demand of bribe is presently under transfer from this project and till the investigation is completed, he may not be assigned any job.
In the facts and circumstances set out hereinabove, particularly, repeated assertion on affidavit as well as in complaint by the petitioner that 30 % amount of the payment due is being demanded as kick back to clear the bills and the Infrastructure Committee of the High Court, which alone is supervising the construction works is also feeling disgusted with the allegations of rampant corruption in the construction works of New High Court building and subordinate Courts premises throughout the State by the State Construction Agencies, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by handing over the investigation to the local police. One such similar instance where this Bench had to interfere on judicial side, when the construction agency wanted to introduce local dealers for supply of ready mix concrete is reflected in the following order dated 5.3.2013:
"Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
A complaint is made during the course of hearing by the President, Oudh Bar Association, on the basis of inter se correspondence between the agencies involved in the construction project of New High Court Building at Gomti Nagar Lucknow that three Cement Companies, namely, M/s. R.M.C. Readymix India, M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited and M/s A.C.C. Concrete Limited, despite a resolution by the Infrastructure Committee headed by a High Court Judge have declined to supply the ready mix concrete without any valid reason and are insisting upon supply of materials only through their local dealers having criminal background.
It is also alleged that these dealers are presently lodged in jail in an FIR lodged for causing assault to Storekeeper and some labourers who are working in the construction project. It is not clear as to on what ground the cement companies have declined to supply the ready mix concrete (RMC) and as to why there is insistence upon supply of the material only through the local dealers with the criminal background. Thus, looking to the background particularly the present law and order position in the State, induction of criminals in the affairs connected with the construction of New High Court Building needs a thorough facts-finding inquiry before we proceed to pass appropriate order in order to plug the loose entry points, if any, for future.
In this regard as per our oral directions, Principal Secretary (Home), Sri R.M. Srivastava, Director General of Police, U.P. Sri A.C. Sharma, Principal Secretary, Industries, Sri Sanjay Agarwal and other officers of Rajkiya Nirman Nigam are present in Court.
On inquiry about the names of senior police officers of Crime Investigation Department (CID) (from the latest transfer lists of such officers), who are known for honest and independent functioning, we find that among such police officers is one lady IPS officer namely, Smt. Laxmi Singh, but we are informed by Principal Secretary (Home) Shri R.M. Srivastava, that though her name had been included in the transfer list but she has been again shifted to Noida for some obvious genuine reason. Mr. Srivastava also states that he has signed her transfer order to Noida only yesterday.
But that nevertheless, since the officer is said to have impeccable background and is known for impartial and independent functioning, we deem it expedient to direct that without disturbing her latest posting in PAC at Noida, supposedly shifted for obviously genuine reasons she shall soon after joining at an early date at Noida start the facts-finding inquiry according to her convenience within a week and submit the report within 15 days thereafter to this Court. In case, she has any serious personal inconvenience, she may inform the Court by filing appropriate application and in that case, the Court may consider to assign the inquiry to some other deserving police officer. The area of inquiry shall be to find out the reasons for declining supply of RMC by the aforesaid cement companies and the background and person/agency responsible for the induction/planting of local dealers with criminal background in the construction project in question. Besides, as the conduct of the cement companies deserves to be viewed seriously and needs to be dealt with firmly by issuing appropriate directions like, to cancel their licence or black list them, inquiry officer shall also probe into such conduct. Moreover, till the inquiry report is submitted to the Court and further appropriate directions are issued, these cement companies shall ensure uninterrupted direct supply of the ready mix concrete (RMC) to the construction agencies so that the construction continues and the costs do not escalate.
Let copy of this order be served upon the chairmen of the aforesaid cement companies; the officers, who were present in Court, learned counsel for parties, and Smt.Laxmi Singh, IPS by the Registrar of this Court at the earliest by fax for information and compliance.
List the matter with inquiry report on 21.03.2013.
Further appearance of Shri R.M. Srivastava, Principal Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police, U.P., Shri A.C. Sharma is dispensed with until further orders. However, Principal Secretary, Industries Shri Sanjay Aggarwal and other officers connected with the construction project shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
Order Date :- 5.3.2013"
Further, there is also a lot of murmuring among the Judges of High Court, who have local roots about corruption, undue favour in giving contracts/sub contracts and kick back etc.
Moreover, as it also appears from the complaint of petitioner that the U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, through its Engineering Wing is also fostering and promoting mafias, apart from indulging in corruption with impunity, we think it expedient to consider the submissions that such matter may require thorough investigation. Besides, the allegations that only such Contractors and sub-contractors are being given jobs, who are related to people in power, be it executive or judiciary, also create strong ground of suspicion about the quality of construction of new High Court building as well as the buildings of subordinate judiciary, already constructed or are still under construction at various places in U.P.
As noticed hereinabove, since the Engineers are also claiming patronage of the State Government in earning illegal money, this Court may have n o option but to consider as to whether the investigation should be given to C.B.I. to find out the veracity of allegations as well as other areas where the funds allocated for construction of High Court buildings and buildings of subordinate courts in the State have been illegally utilized or diverted for private/personal use like the one relating to construction and maintenance of private buildings of persons, presently, directly or indirectly, positioned in the helm of affairs.
Thus, we stay the arrest of petitioner in the aforesaid case crime.
However, looking to serious consequence and fall out that might follow if we direct inquiry by SIT or CBI or any other independent agency into the alleged demand of bribe, passing of kick backs, diversion of funds, high payment, pilferage of construction materials and showing favours in the engagement of Contractor/sub contractors or suppliers of materials etc. etc. relating to new High Court building and other buildings of subordinate courts, we think it appropriate and thus reserve the order on the question of investigation by C.B.I. or any other independent agency.
Order Date:-1.4.2014
Irfan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
BENCH
?Court No. - 2
C.M. Application No. 38165 of 2014.
In re:
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.
This application has been moved in aforesaid writ petition by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman for expunging certain remarks made in the order dated 1.4.2013. The writ petition has been moved by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. lodged against him on the charges relating to the construction work of new High Court building at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
However, since one of us (Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.) is a member of the Committee which is monitoring the construction of new High Court building, we deem it appropriate that the matter be listed before a Bench of which one of us (Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.) is not a member.
Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Senior Judge/Chief Justice by tomorrow.
Order Date :- 15.4.2014
MFA/-
?Court No. - 2
C.M. Application No. 38165 of 2014.
In re:
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.
This application has been moved in aforesaid writ petition by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman for expunging certain remarks made in the order dated 1.4.2013. The writ petition has been moved by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. lodged against him on the charges relating to the construction work of new High Court building at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
However, since one of us (Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.) is a member of the Committee which is monitoring the construction of new High Court building, we deem it appropriate that the matter be listed before a Bench of which one of us (Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.) is not a member.
Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Senior Judge/Chief Justice by tomorrow.
Order Date :- 15.4.2014
MFA/-
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh,Shishir Jain
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
1. We have heard Shri Jaideep Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shishir Jain in support of application filed by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam (UPRNN) for intervention. A separate application has been filed by UPRNN for expunging the adverse remarks/observations made by this Court against UPRNN and its officers in the order dated 1.4.2014 regarding demand of bribe, passing of kick backs, diversion of funds etc.
2. Shri Ijhar Hussain, Assistant Government Advocate has also filed an application on behalf of State of UP, supported by affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of UP, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow with the same prayers to recall the order dated 1.4.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.2599 (MB) of 2014 (Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu vs. The State of UP and ors).
3. The applications were filed by UPRNN with urgent motion on 15.4.2014 before the appropriate Court. By an order dated 15.4.2014 the matter was released by the appropriate Court, for nominating a Bench to hear the matter. On the same day the matter was nominated to be heard by a Bench presided over by one of us (Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.) along with Hon. Devendra Pratap Singh, J. on 16.4.2014 at 2 PM with connected records. The counsels appearing for the parties were directed to be informed.
4. Despite our directions the registry has not been able to place the main file before us. However, considering the importance of the matter we have proceeded to hear the parties to pass orders in the matter on the Bench copy.
5. We have gone through the order passed by the Division Bench on 1.4.2014 and find substance in the contention of Shri Jaideep Mathur that there were no allegations in the pleadings nor there were any prayers made in the writ petition with regard to any larger enquiry to be made, in the matter of constructions and other financial matters in award of contracts in construction of the new High Court building. The writ petition was filed for quashing the FIR dated 15.3.2014 registered vide Case Crime No.59 of 2014 under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the police authorities from arresting the petitioner. This Court after summoning the officers of the Metro Rail Corporation, Senior Superintendent of Police, Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd, who had no concern with the allegations, has made certain observations which are injurious to reputation of the agency and its officers. The observations and suggestion of investigation of the matters relating to allegations that only such contractors and sub contractors are being given jobs, who are related to people in power, be it executive or judiciary, create strong ground of suspicion about the quality of construction of new High Court building as well as the buildings of subordinate judiciary, already constructed or are still under construction at various places in UP, have no connection with the matter for quashing a FIR which was brought before the Court.
6. We also do not find that any prayer was made or any material was available before the Bench to consider as to whether the investigation shall be given to any independent agency or the CBI and further there could be no reason as to why the orders on such enquiry for which no prayer was made by any person appearing in the matter were reserved.
7. We also find that there are some insinuations and remarks in the order with regard to Committees of Hon'ble Judges of the Court, which have been entrusted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice the task to look after the quality of constructions.
8. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Neeraj Chaubey and others (2010) 10 SCC 320 relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Maya Dixit vs. State of UP Writ Petition No.34197 of 2010 decided on 13.9.2010 the Apex Court held as follows:-
"8. In this regard, it is brought to our notice that the Full Bench decision of the same High Court of Allahabad, while answering the reference made to a larger bench in W.P. No. 34197 of 2010 (Smt. Maya Dixit & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 13.09.2010, dealt with the issues involved herein.
9. The High Court had taken note of various judgments of this Court including State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan, AIR 1982 SC 1198; Inder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC 587; State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1, R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai (2000) 2 SCC 391 and Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294 and various judgments of High Courts and came to the conclusion that the Chief Justice is the master of roster. The Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of things. The Chief Justice enjoys a special status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or Full Bench. He has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by which Bench. If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the court would collapse and the judicial work of the court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The Court held that a Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court only if the case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the court. No departure from this procedure is permissible.
10. In case an application is filed and the Bench comes to the conclusion that it involves some issues relating to public interest, the Bench may not entertain it as a Public Interest Litigation but the court has its option to convert it into a Public Interest Litigation and ask the Registry to place it before a Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain the PIL as per the Rules, guidelines or by the roster fixed by the Chief Justice but the Bench cannot convert itself into a PIL and proceed with the matter itself.
11. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, which we hold is in accordance with law and in consonance with the rules and procedure, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-State of U.P., seeks permission to move an application in respect of the matter in issue before the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate directions. We permit the State to move such application. The impugned order directing the officials to appear before the Court on 20.09.2010 shall remain stayed. The present order of stay shall continue till further orders being passed by the appropriate Bench dealing with the PIL after the orders of the Chief Justice."
9. Incidentally the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Neeraj Chaubey and others (supra) relates to the same High Court building, which is now under construction.
10. We are of the view that on the facts and special circumstances placed before us we following the judicial discipline and traditions of the Court and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Neeraj Chaubey and others (supra) it is appropriate to refer the entire matter to Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to hear and decide the writ petition. The larger bench may formulate the question as may be necessary to be decided by it. The registry will place the entire record of the case before Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders, forthwith and latest by tomorrow for appropriate orders.
11. The petitioner may in the meantime file reply to the applications and the counter affidavit filed by UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd and State of UP.
12. We direct that in the meantime until the larger bench is constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the matter is heard and decided, the status quo shall be obtained by all concerned in the proceedings of the Court and the orders to be passed in the matter. The order of the status quo, however, shall not be taken by the State of UP or the UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd to cause any impediment in the constructions or the progress of the project, which shall go on and be completed in the targeted period. The interim order of stay of arrest of the petitioner will continue to operate till further orders of the Court.
Order Date :- 16.4.2014
RKP
?Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh,Shishir Jain
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
1. We have heard Shri Jaideep Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shishir Jain in support of application filed by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam (UPRNN) for intervention. A separate application has been filed by UPRNN for expunging the adverse remarks/observations made by this Court against UPRNN and its officers in the order dated 1.4.2014 regarding demand of bribe, passing of kick backs, diversion of funds etc.
2. Shri Ijhar Hussain, Assistant Government Advocate has also filed an application on behalf of State of UP, supported by affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of UP, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow with the same prayers to recall the order dated 1.4.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.2599 (MB) of 2014 (Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu vs. The State of UP and ors).
3. The applications were filed by UPRNN with urgent motion on 15.4.2014 before the appropriate Court. By an order dated 15.4.2014 the matter was released by the appropriate Court, for nominating a Bench to hear the matter. On the same day the matter was nominated to be heard by a Bench presided over by one of us (Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.) along with Hon. Devendra Pratap Singh, J. on 16.4.2014 at 2 PM with connected records. The counsels appearing for the parties were directed to be informed.
4. Despite our directions the registry has not been able to place the main file before us. However, considering the importance of the matter we have proceeded to hear the parties to pass orders in the matter on the Bench copy.
5. We have gone through the order passed by the Division Bench on 1.4.2014 and find substance in the contention of Shri Jaideep Mathur that there were no allegations in the pleadings nor there were any prayers made in the writ petition with regard to any larger enquiry to be made, in the matter of constructions and other financial matters in award of contracts in construction of the new High Court building. The writ petition was filed for quashing the FIR dated 15.3.2014 registered vide Case Crime No.59 of 2014 under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the police authorities from arresting the petitioner. This Court after summoning the officers of the Metro Rail Corporation, Senior Superintendent of Police, Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd, who had no concern with the allegations, has made certain observations which are injurious to reputation of the agency and its officers. The observations and suggestion of investigation of the matters relating to allegations that only such contractors and sub contractors are being given jobs, who are related to people in power, be it executive or judiciary, create strong ground of suspicion about the quality of construction of new High Court building as well as the buildings of subordinate judiciary, already constructed or are still under construction at various places in UP, have no connection with the matter for quashing a FIR which was brought before the Court.
6. We also do not find that any prayer was made or any material was available before the Bench to consider as to whether the investigation shall be given to any independent agency or the CBI and further there could be no reason as to why the orders on such enquiry for which no prayer was made by any person appearing in the matter were reserved.
7. We also find that there are some insinuations and remarks in the order with regard to Committees of Hon'ble Judges of the Court, which have been entrusted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice the task to look after the quality of constructions.
8. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Neeraj Chaubey and others (2010) 10 SCC 320 relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Maya Dixit vs. State of UP Writ Petition No.34197 of 2010 decided on 13.9.2010 the Apex Court held as follows:-
"8. In this regard, it is brought to our notice that the Full Bench decision of the same High Court of Allahabad, while answering the reference made to a larger bench in W.P. No. 34197 of 2010 (Smt. Maya Dixit & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 13.09.2010, dealt with the issues involved herein.
9. The High Court had taken note of various judgments of this Court including State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan, AIR 1982 SC 1198; Inder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC 587; State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1, R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai (2000) 2 SCC 391 and Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294 and various judgments of High Courts and came to the conclusion that the Chief Justice is the master of roster. The Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of things. The Chief Justice enjoys a special status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or Full Bench. He has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by which Bench. If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the court would collapse and the judicial work of the court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The Court held that a Judge or a Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court only if the case is allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the court. No departure from this procedure is permissible.
10. In case an application is filed and the Bench comes to the conclusion that it involves some issues relating to public interest, the Bench may not entertain it as a Public Interest Litigation but the court has its option to convert it into a Public Interest Litigation and ask the Registry to place it before a Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain the PIL as per the Rules, guidelines or by the roster fixed by the Chief Justice but the Bench cannot convert itself into a PIL and proceed with the matter itself.
11. In view of the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, which we hold is in accordance with law and in consonance with the rules and procedure, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-State of U.P., seeks permission to move an application in respect of the matter in issue before the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate directions. We permit the State to move such application. The impugned order directing the officials to appear before the Court on 20.09.2010 shall remain stayed. The present order of stay shall continue till further orders being passed by the appropriate Bench dealing with the PIL after the orders of the Chief Justice."
9. Incidentally the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Neeraj Chaubey and others (supra) relates to the same High Court building, which is now under construction.
10. We are of the view that on the facts and special circumstances placed before us we following the judicial discipline and traditions of the Court and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Neeraj Chaubey and others (supra) it is appropriate to refer the entire matter to Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to hear and decide the writ petition. The larger bench may formulate the question as may be necessary to be decided by it. The registry will place the entire record of the case before Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders, forthwith and latest by tomorrow for appropriate orders.
11. The petitioner may in the meantime file reply to the applications and the counter affidavit filed by UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd and State of UP.
12. We direct that in the meantime until the larger bench is constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the matter is heard and decided, the status quo shall be obtained by all concerned in the proceedings of the Court and the orders to be passed in the matter. The order of the status quo, however, shall not be taken by the State of UP or the UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd to cause any impediment in the constructions or the progress of the project, which shall go on and be completed in the targeted period. The interim order of stay of arrest of the petitioner will continue to operate till further orders of the Court.
Order Date :- 16.4.2014
RKP
?Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh,Shishir Jain
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Arvind Kumar Kushwaha
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
This Full Bench has been constituted by the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 17.4.2014, on a reference made by a Division Bench by order dated 16.4.2014.
In pursuance to the notice given by Hon'ble Chief Justice permitting any members of the Bar Association, who may be interested in the questions to be formulated and decided by the Full Bench to assist the Court, the Awadh Bar Association has entered appearance through its President. It is stated by him that the Executive Committee of the Awadh Bar Association has been elected and has taken over recently and thus it may be given an opportunity to assist the Court. A request has also been made to formulate the question/s to be heard by the Full Bench.
An application has been made by Shri Ashok Pandey, Advocate supported by his affidavit, for intervention.
The oral request for intervention of the Awadh Bar Association is allowed.
In order to allow the parties and the applicants for intervention, we formulate the following question to be considered by the Bench:-
"Whether a Judge of Hon'ble High Court sitting alone or Judges sitting in a Division Bench hearing any matter in his/their determination assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, can overstep into the determination of another Bench, if any issue or question arises in the matter including a question in public interest, which is not connected to the matter before him/them, and which in his/their opinion is necessary to be decided, and further in such case where in his/their discretion it is necessary to decide such question, what should be the procedure to be adopted."
We make it clear that the Full Bench with the assistance of the parties to the writ petition and intervention, may reformulate the question or frame additional questions which are connected with the question framed as above, for effective hearing of the case.
So far as the application of Shri Ashok Pandey is concerned, we request him to consider to delete paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit.
The parties to the writ petition and interventions are permitted a week's time to file their written submission except Shri Ashok Pandey, whose application for intervention has not been considered as yet.
Let written arguments be submitted by 9th May, 2014.
The date of hearing will be notified in advance. The name of Shri Shakil Ahmad, appearing for respondent no.4 will be shown in cause list. The registry will give a copy of the writ petition, and the intervention applications, filed to the Awadh Bar Association.
Order Date :- 28.4.2014
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2599 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh,Shishir Jain
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Arvind Kumar Kushwaha
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
This Full Bench has been constituted by the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 17.4.2014, on a reference made by a Division Bench by order dated 16.4.2014.
In pursuance to the notice given by Hon'ble Chief Justice permitting any members of the Bar Association, who may be interested in the questions to be formulated and decided by the Full Bench to assist the Court, the Awadh Bar Association has entered appearance through its President. It is stated by him that the Executive Committee of the Awadh Bar Association has been elected and has taken over recently and thus it may be given an opportunity to assist the Court. A request has also been made to formulate the question/s to be heard by the Full Bench.
An application has been made by Shri Ashok Pandey, Advocate supported by his affidavit, for intervention.
The oral request for intervention of the Awadh Bar Association is allowed.
In order to allow the parties and the applicants for intervention, we formulate the following question to be considered by the Bench:-
"Whether a Judge of Hon'ble High Court sitting alone or Judges sitting in a Division Bench hearing any matter in his/their determination assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, can overstep into the determination of another Bench, if any issue or question arises in the matter including a question in public interest, which is not connected to the matter before him/them, and which in his/their opinion is necessary to be decided, and further in such case where in his/their discretion it is necessary to decide such question, what should be the procedure to be adopted."
We make it clear that the Full Bench with the assistance of the parties to the writ petition and intervention, may reformulate the question or frame additional questions which are connected with the question framed as above, for effective hearing of the case.
So far as the application of Shri Ashok Pandey is concerned, we request him to consider to delete paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit.
The parties to the writ petition and interventions are permitted a week's time to file their written submission except Shri Ashok Pandey, whose application for intervention has not been considered as yet.
Let written arguments be submitted by 9th May, 2014.
The date of hearing will be notified in advance. The name of Shri Shakil Ahmad, appearing for respondent no.4 will be shown in cause list. The registry will give a copy of the writ petition, and the intervention applications, filed to the Awadh Bar Association.
Order Date :- 28.4.2014
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
bench, Lucknow
Civil
Misc. Application No. of
2014 M/B
On behalf of
Asok Pande s/o Late Dayanand Pandey
r/o 5/1243 , Viram Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow.
…………….Applicant
In
–re
Writ Petition No.2599 M/B of 2014
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Versus
Petitioner
State of U.P. and others
Respondents
Application for intervention
For the
facts, reasons and circumstances as narrated in the accompanying affidavit, it
is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the
petitioner as an intervener and the orders in the matter be passed only after hearing
him.
Lucknow Asok
Pande
Dated:28/4/2014 (Applicant)
In
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,Lucknow Bench Lucknow
Writ
petition No.2599 M/B 2014
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Versus
Petitioner
State of U.P. and others
Respondents
Affidavit in Support of application
for Intervention
I
Asok Pande aged about 52 years s/o Late Dayanand Pandey, r/o 5/1243 , Viram
Khand , Gomtinagar ,Lucknow ,Religion : Hindu , Education : B.A. LL.B. the deponent do solemnly affirm and state on
oath as under:
1. That the deponent is applicant No.1and he is fully
conversant with the fact of the case deposed here as under.
2. That in the present case the hon’ble court has
invited the members of the bar willing to appear and say something in the
matter and so the applicant is moving the application for intervention. Otherwise
also the applicant was also intending to put his point when the hon’ble court
was hearing the case on the last date.
3. That the matter of corruption involve in the
construction of the high court building came in the lime light when a
contractor, claiming his payment in lieu of the some work done by him, was
demanded 30% of the total amount of bill being claimed by him.
4. That when the FIR was lodged against him ,he
challenged that FIR in the high court .
5. That after hearing the matter the 2 judges bench of
this court ,while staying his arrest passed some remark about some murmuring in
the high court about involvement of money( bribe) in allotment of the contract in the high court and civil court
building .
6. That while staying the arrest the bench also
reserved the order for consideration to direct an enquiry by the SIT or CBI in
the matter of construction of high court and civil court building and he did it
with the consent of the Government advocate.
7. That when the judgment/ Order with respect to CBI or
SIT enquiry was reserve with the bench of Hon’ble Umanath Singh and
hon’ble Zaki Ulla , some application for
intervention was moved by Nirman Nigam within a day or 2 ,a new bench comprising of Hon’ble Sunnel
Ambwani and Hon’ble D.P.Singh was constituted to hear the matter and that bench after some hearing ,referred
the matter to the larger bench for hearing and in the mean time ordered for
maintaining status –quo.
8. That the question is why a new bench was constituted
to hear the matter and why it was done so hurriedly and why the application for
intervention and modification moved by U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam was not
directed to be placed before the bench which has reserved the order.
9. That the bench which reserved the order noted the
consent of the government advocate Mr. Rishad
Murtaza about referring the matter to the CBI or SIT.
10.
That when the
matter was being heard by a new bench the new state Law officer who happens to
be the assistant of Sri Rishad Murtaza appeared in the court and made the
statement that Sri Rishad Murtaza has not made the statement which was quoted
by the bench meaning thereby that the government advocate denied the fact that
he gave his consent for CBI or SIT enquiry. This mean that judges wrongly
mentioned the consent of GA for holding SIT or CBI enquiry.
11.
That if it is
fact it may be taken a ground for taking an action against the member of the
bench who passed the order.
12.
That as soon
as GA denied his consent made by him before 1 bench ,and before another bench ,
this matter should have been heard only by the bench comprising of Hon’ble Sri
Umanth Singh and Hon’ble Zaki Ulla as both are still the sitting judges of
Allahabad High Court.
13.
That the
hearing of the matter by another bench or full bench without there being those
two judges as a member amounts to causing serious aspersion and doubt on the
conduct of the two judges who initially
reserved the order and heard the order.
14.
That in view
of it the constitution of the three judges bench to hear this matter is highly
illegal and unconstitutional .This amounts to indictment , insult and
misbehavior with the Sri Uma Nath and Sri Zaki Ulla. Though the Chief Justice
is master of the roster but that does not give an authority to the Chief
Justice to insult , and misbehave the good ,honest, bold judges.
15.
That one more
fact the applicant intends to bring on the record of the matter is that a
friend of mine Sri R.N.S. Chauhan advocate who is also a close friend of Sri
Imtiaz Murtaza J. informed me that some contractor approached him with a offer
of 25 lakh rupees in case he is able to manage a contract in his favor with the
Ashirvad /blessing of Sri Imtiaz Murtaza J. Sri R.N.S. Chauhan denied the offer
but even then later on he was informed that the same person has got the
contract. This shows that the contractors are moving around the High Court,the
resident of the judges and the resident of their nears and dears with huge
money for getting the contract. The question is why the judges are so involved
in the award of contract? Whether it is
judges work or it is work of the beaurocracy? The bribe which was offered to
Mr. R.N. S. Chauhan Advocate went to whom? How many such more contracts were
awarded and who received the bribe? On whose recommendations and directions the
contract of Civil Court and High Court building are being awarded?
16.
That in view
of above fact the applicant has moved for intervention in the matter and prayed
the hon’ble Court to pass any order after hearing him.
Lucknow
Dated: 28/4/2014 Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify
that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 13 above this Affidavit are true and
correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed. So, help me God
Signed and verified this the day of 2012 at
Lucknow
Deponent
Identification
I identify the deponent, on the basis of
records produced before me, who has signed before me.
Advocate
Solemnly affirmed me on at am/pm by the
deponent , who has been
identified by Sri clerk
to Sri ,
Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
I have satisfied myself by examining the
deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been
read over and explained to him by me
Oath
Commissioner
