TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standing of various orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003, 18.09.2003, 25.10.2003 and 07.08.2003 passed by this Court. We are also satisfied that there was no such direction relating to second FIR, namely, FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003.We are satisfied that there was no such finding or satisfaction recorded by this Court in the matter of disproportionate assets of the Petitioner on the basis of the status report dated 11.09.2003 and, in fact, the Petitioner was not a party before this Court in the case in question. From the perusal of those orders, we are also satisfied that there could not have been any material before this Court about the disproportionate assets case of the Petitioner beyond the Taj Corridor Project case and there was no such question or issue about disproportionate assets of the Petitioner. In view of the same, giving any direction to lodge FIR relating to disproportionate assets case did not arise. CBI is not justified in proceeding with the FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. we hold that in the absence of any specific direction from this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 or any subsequent orders, the CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s committed by the officers/persons in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and to submit a Preliminary Report. (c) By means of an order dated 21.08.2003, this Court issued certain directions to the CBI to interrogate and verify the assets of the persons concerned with regard to outflow of ₹ 17 crores which was alleged to have been released without proper sanction for the said Project. When the case was taken up for hearing on 11.09.2003, a report was submitted by the CBI and it was directed to be kept in a sealed cover in the Registry. (d) This Court, in its further order dated 18.09.2003, on the basis of the report dated 11.09.2003, granted further time to the CBI for verification of the assets of the officers/persons involved. The CBI-Respondent No. 2 herein submitted a report on 18.09.2003 before this Court which formed the basis of order dated 18.09.2003 wherein the CBI was directed to conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution of the Taj Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra. (e) Pursuant to the orders of this Court, an FIR was lodged on 05.10.2003 being RC No. 0062003A0018/2003 Under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner and her close relatives and on the basis of this inquiry lodged the said FIR, whereas there was no direction or observation by this Court to inquire into the assets of the Petitioner not related to the said Project case. (h) The said FIR has been lodged by Shri K.N. Tewari, Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACP, Lucknow, however, in the column of complaint at page No. 2 of the FIR, the name of the complainant/informant has been mentioned as Shri Inder Pal, Assistant Registrar, PIL Branch, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi even though no such order or direction issued by him for registration of the case. It is further pointed out that Shri Inder Pal has not signed any such FIR as complainant/informant. Pursuant to the impugned FIR -R.C. No. 19 of 2003 the CBI conducted raids, search and seizure operations at all the premises of the Petitioner and her relatives and seized all the bank accounts. (i) The Petitioner has made several representations to the CBI officials, the State Minister of Personnel and the Hon'ble Prime Minister who heads the Personnel Department drawing their attention that the Supreme Court had not given any such direction or authority to the CBI to lod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine guilt of a person or otherwise. When the matter came up before the Governor of U.P. to grant or refuse sanction for prosecution, he sought legal opinion from the Additional Solicitor General of India and based on his opinion and on appreciation of entire materials, the Governor has concluded that the Petitioner was not even remotely connected with the sanction of the said Project or the payment released for the same. After the above order of the Governor, the directions given by this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 were fully complied with including in respect to consider violations of the provisions of the PC Act. After this, there was no justification or authority with the CBI to continue with the investigation in other personal assets of the Petitioner. (m) On 05.06.2007, the CBI moved an application before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, (CBI), Lucknow informing that the Governor had refused to grant sanction. On perusal of all the materials including the order of the Governor declining to grant sanction, the Special Judge held that in the absence of sanction to prosecute the Petitioner, the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. (n) The order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2009 (M/B) concerning FIR being RC No. 18 dated 05.10.2003 for intervention in the above matter and to assist the Court. By pointing out that it was he who challenged the order of the Governor declining to grant sanction in respect of FIR No. 18 and filed Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2009 which is pending in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, sought to intervene to put-forth certain factual details. In the said application, the intervener has also highlighted various earlier orders of this Court. The said I.A. was resisted by the Petitioner by pointing out that in the present writ petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of the second FIR i.e. R.C. No. 19 only on the ground that there was no such direction in the order dated 18.09.2003 passed by this Court. The intervention application is therefore, misconceived. It is also pointed out that the intervener has filed his writ petition in Lucknow in 2009 and his intervention application was filed on 08.09.2010 whereas the Petitioner had filed writ petition in May, 2008 and this Court had issued notice on 15.05.2008. It is also pointed out that the intervener was not associated with the Project matter before this Court at any stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 10 other accused persons in respect of Taj Corridor matter and (ii) FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act against the Petitioner only. It is the specific stand of the CBI that in the order dated 18.09.2003 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 376 of 2003 in Writ Petition No. 13381 of 1984 -M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 696, there was a clear direction to register an FIR for investigating into disproportionate assets of the Petitioner on the ground that in the said order, it is mentioned that apart from what has been stated in the reports with regard to the assets, the learned ASG Mr. Altaf Ahmed has submitted that further inquiry/investigation is necessary by the CBI . It is also their stand that the validity of the aforesaid FIRs was not disturbed by the Allahabad High Court by its order dated 22.10.2003 on the ground that the FIR in question was filed as per the directions of this Court. It is further stated that the second FIR being No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 revealed the details of huge amount of disproportionate assets possessed by the Petitioner and her family members beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and final report within two months from 16.07.2003. 12. In the next order dated 21.08.2003, M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2003) 8 SCC 711, this Court, after going through the Preliminary Confidential Report submitted by the CBI, directed the higher officer of CBI to interrogate four, five or six more persons who are involved in the decision-making of granting contract for construction of the Taj Heritage Corridor. In the same order, this Court observed that it would be open to the CBI officer to interrogate and verify their assets because it was alleged that ₹ 17 crores were released without proper sanction. 13. The next order is dated 18.09.2003 -M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (8) SCC 696. In this order, this Court referred to the earlier directions and orders, more particularly, the direction to CBI to interrogate the persons involved and verify their assets in view of the fact that it was alleged that an amount of ₹ 17 crores was released without proper sanction. After going through the report of the CBI submitted on 11.09.2003, further time was given to the CBI for verification of the assets of the persons/officers involved. In the course of heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et Secretary, Union Government and to the Ministry concerned dealing with NPCC. 14. A perusal of the orders prior to the order dated 18.09.2003 and several directions in the order dated 18.09.2003 clearly show that this Court was concerned with illegality/irregularity committed by the officers/persons in carrying out the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. The main allegation relates to an amount of ₹ 17 crores which was released by the State Government without proper sanction. It is also clear that in order to find out who cleared the project and for what purpose it was cleared without obtaining necessary sanction from the Department concerned and whether there was any illegality/irregularity committed by the officers/persons, this Court thought an inquiry by CBI was considered necessary. In such a situation, the CBI was directed to interrogate and verify their assets. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Harish Salve, there was no occasion for this Court to consider the alleged disproportionate assets of the Petitioner separately that too from 1995 to 2003 when admittedly ₹ 17 crores were released in September, 2002. 15. A thorough scrutiny of all the orders including the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations. 71. In Minor Irrigation Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya this Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their investigation in respect of this FIR. In the event any link is disclosed in the course of such investigation between facts as found and the Taj Corridor Project, CBI will bring the same to the notice of this Court. In any event, CBI will be entitled to take action on the basis of the investigation as it may think fit. In addition to the above, he also pressed into service para 4 of the order dated 19.07.2004 - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 136. The said order reads as under: 4. CBI is permitted further eight weeks' time to complete the investigation in respect of FIR No. RC 0062003A0018. As far as FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 is concerned, three months' time is granted. In view of the argument of Mr. Mohan Parasaran as well as Ms. Kamini Jaiswal relying on the above directions, we have gone through all those orders meticulously. According to us, the entire issue revolves around the order dated 18.09.2003 passed by this Court as the FIR was filed immediately thereafter on 05.10.2003. The said FIR as well as the counter affidavit filed by the CBI states that the FIR has been filed as per the directions contained in the order dated 18.09.2003. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 18.09.2003 has been communicated to various authorities in terms of the provisions of the rules of this Court, the CBI is not justified in putting the Assistant Registrar of this Court as informant/complainant. Further as rightly pointed out by Mr. Salve, the complainant/Assistant Registrar would not and cannot be a witness in the case to corroborate the statements made in the FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. As rightly pointed out, proceeding further, as if the said Assistant Registrar of this Court made a complaint cannot be sustained. 20. We have already pointed out after reading various orders of this Court which show that Taj Corridor was the subject matter of reference before the Special Bench. Various directions issued in the order dated 18.09.2003 have to be read in the light of the previous orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003 and 11.09.2003 as well as subsequent orders dated 25.10.2004 and 07.08.2006 wherein this Court has clarified that it was not monitoring the disproportionate assets case. We are satisfied that reading of all the orders of this Court clearly show the direction to lodge FIR was issued only with respect to Taj Corridor matter, more part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such question or issue about disproportionate assets of the Petitioner. In view of the same, giving any direction to lodge FIR relating to disproportionate assets case did not arise. 22. We finally conclude that anything beyond the Taj Corridor matter was not the subject-matter of reference before the Taj Corridor Bench. Since the order dated 18.09.2003 does not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against the Petitioner, CBI is not justified in proceeding with the FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 in the absence of any direction from this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 or in any subsequent orders. 23. Regarding the intervention application -I.A. No. 8 of 2010 filed by Shri Kamlesh Verma, though an objection was raised about his right to intervene in the matter, it is not in dispute that against the rejection of the sanction to proceed against the Petitioner by the State, he had preferred a Writ Petition (C) No. 2019 of 2009 in the Allahabad High Court whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
