Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1241 (ALL)

Bindu Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-04-06

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT The petitioner has sought to question in these proceedings the legality of a communication dated 30 December 2015 issued by the office of the Lok Ayukta to her. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents. The fifth respondent is the Executive Officer and the sixth respondent is the Chairperson of the Nagar Panchayat, Sarai Aakil in district Kaushambi. The seventh respondent is the spouse of the sixth respondent. The complaint was rejected by the Lok Ayukta on the ground that criminal cases in relation to the same issue have been registered and since the allegations involve an element of criminal wrong doing, the matter cannot be investigated into by the office of the Lok Ayukta. Evidently in passing this order, the relevant provision on which the order is based is Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1975. Section 8(1) (B) (ii) provides that the Lok Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation under the Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action if the complainant has or had any remedy by way of proceeding before any Tribunal or Court of law. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of the respondent. The preliminary objection is based on the circumstance that the spouse of the petitioner had filed three prior public interest litigations. The first which was PIL No. 50677 of 2014 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 31 October 2014 for non-compliance of the provisions of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which was amended in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029. Two subsequent PILs (PIL No. 54947 of 2014 and PIL No. 20684 of 2015) were dismissed respectively on 26 November 2014 and 21 April 2014. The first of those orders is for non-compliance of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII while the final order referred to above is on the ground that the dismissal of the writ petitions was not disclosed. 3. The first of those orders is for non-compliance of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII while the final order referred to above is on the ground that the dismissal of the writ petitions was not disclosed. 3. The petitioner, in our view, was duty bound to disclose to the Court that her spouse had sought access to this Court in three earlier public interest litigations which were met with an order of dismissal though for non disclosure as required under the High Court Rules. These were not facts which were beyond the knowledge of the petitioner and ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth and sixth respondents has placed on the record a chart indicating the applications which were pending under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. against the sixth respondent and moreover revisions which are also pending before this Court. The orders passed in the earlier public interest litigations and the tabulated chart has been placed on the record. 4. For these reasons, we are of the view that the recourse to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 has not been taken for bona fide reasons but obviously for extraneous purposes. Consequently, we decline to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.