Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Safique Khan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 34969 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11279 (11 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. A.P.Sahi,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents

As is evident from the facts on record, the impleadment application is partly allowed permitting the  impleadment of C.P.Singh Chandel as respondent no.6 in the present writ petition. The petitioner is further permitted to  implead the Under Secretary, Vigilance Department  U.P.Lucknow as respondent no.7 within three days.

Heard  Sri M.D.Singh Sekhar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B.Yadav learned  chief standing counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5 and 7.

Issue notice to the respondent no.6 returnable at an early date for which steps shall be taken within ten days.

The respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks, to which the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within three weeks thereafter.

From the facts  brought on record it appears that several orders were passed from time to time in respect of the allegations of disproportionate assets  of the petitioner. The State Govt has passed an  order on 6.7.2002, whereby it was directed not to proceed with any such enquiry in respect of the aforesaid allegations. The order has not been rescinded nor  it has been   challenged before any appropriate forum. In such circumstance the petitioner contends that  it was not open to the respondents to have further proceeded either to entertain any complaint on the said issue or  hold enquiry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner  has relied on the  two decisions,  namely A.IR. 1975 S.C. 2277 ,State of Assam Vs. J.N.Roy and 2002 (10) S.C.C. 471, Union of India Vs. K.D.Pandey. From the allegations contained in the writ petition, it further transpires that the enquiry  was again conducted in the years 2003 and 2004 and by the Lok Ayukt in the year 2005. The said enquiry proceedings  have resulted in favour of the petitioner.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, prima facie the contention of the petitioner that the subsequent enquiry proceedings amount to malafide, appears to be correct. Since the allegations are of such  nature which  deservcs  an enquiry to be conducted, it would be appropriate  that the respondents may proceed to hold an enquiry as per the impugned order, but  they shall  not proceed to pass final order except with leave of the court.

List after expiry of the six weeks

Dt .11.7.06



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.