TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person or otherwise. Any direction which could be issued, in our opinion, has already been issued by us on 27.11.2006. We may observe that while entertaining a public interest litigation in a given case, this Court may exercise a jurisdiction to set aside the decision of a constitutional authority, but we are not concerned with such a situation. We, therefore, are of the view that we need not go further than what we have already said in our order dated 27.11.2006 to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Governor. If no sanction of the Governor was required or if he has committed an error in passing the said order, the appropriate court, in our opinion, would be entitled to deal therewith, but not this Bench. We, therefore, are of the opinion that this Bench should not entertain the application filed by the learned Amicus Curiae. The said application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. - S.B. Sinha S.H. Kapadia and D.K. Jain For the Appearing Parties: Ghoolam E. Vahanvati, S.G., A. Sharan, A.S.G., Jyotindra Mishra, Adv. Gen., Ajay Siwach, A.A.G., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Dipankar Gupta, M.N. Rao, K.K. Venugopal, Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desh. Investigations were also carried out against some officers. CBI was later on asked to furnish a self-contained note as regards its findings against the erring officers and holders of public posts. A detailed report was submitted by it. A question arose as to what directions, if any, should be issued by this Court having regard to the conflict in opinions expressed by different authorities of CBI in regard to Ms. Mayawati and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddiqui. The said question was considered by this Court in its judgment and order dated 27.11.2006 in M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India and Ors. (2007)1SCC110 . 4. Indisputably, the said order of this Court has been complied with. It now appears that the learned Special Judge directed CBI to obtain sanction of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. By reason of an order dated 03.06.2007 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh has refused to accord the same. 5. Mr. Krishan Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae, who has been assisting this Court very ably in the matter, filed an application, inter alia, praying for: In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing all steps which have been thought necessary and proper in the matter. The question which, however, has arisen for our consideration is, should we undertake such an exercise. No doubt, a First Information Report has been lodged at the instance of this Court. Yet again this Court thought it fit to issue requisite directions in its order dated 27.11.2006 directing the learned Special Judge to apply its mind on the materials collected during investigation by CBI and pass appropriate orders thereupon. This Court has been exercising its jurisdiction in public interest. It has been exercising its jurisdiction to issue a writ of continuous mandamus in the light of the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India 1998CriLJ1208 . 8. We have no doubt in our mind that judiciary may step in where it finds the actions on the part of the Legislature or the Executive are illegal or unconstitutional but the same by itself would not mean that public interest litigation, in a case of this nature, should be converted into an adversarial litigation. The jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ of continuous mandamus is only to see that proper investigation is carried out. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishment. Investigation of an offence is the field reserved for the executive through the Police Department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over the law and order situation. It is obliged to prevent crime. If an offence is committed allegedly, it is the State's duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates through the Police Department and finds an offence having been committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for the purposes of proving the offence. Once that is completed, the investigating officer submits report to the court requesting the court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 CrPC and his duty comes to an end. Therefore, there are well-defined and well-demarcated functions in the field of crime detect ion and their subsequent adjudication by the court. Lastly, the term investigation under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code includes opinion of the officer in charge of the police station as to whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
