High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Safique Khan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 34969 of 2006  RD-AH 11279 (11 July 2006)
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 The order has not been rescinded nor it has been challenged before any appropriate forum.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
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.