Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2513 (ALL)

Narendra Kumar Singh Gaur v. State Of U. P.

2018-12-11

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, PIYUSH AGRAWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Singal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the recommendation dated 22.7.2005 made by the Lokayukta in respect of certain allegations made against Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh Gaur (the then Member of Legislative Assembly) with regard to misuse of the Vidhayak Nidhi. The other orders dated 4.7.2008, 6.8.2008 and 11.2.2009 are consequential orders whereby a recovery of Rs. 5.01 lacs has been sought to be made against the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as MLA in the year 2002 and served as such uptil 2007. During this period it is stated that a number of public works were undertaken by the petitioner for which funds were released through the Vidhayak Nidhi. 4. However, a complaint was made by one Anshu Malaviya, respondent no.6 alleging illegalities and irregularities in the matter of utilization of the Vidhayak Nidhi. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegations made against him were politically motivated. 5. Be that as it may, an enquiry into the matter was undertaken by the Lokayukta who submitted his report on 22.7.2005 finding the petitioner guilty of misuse of the Vidhayak Nidhi. Upon receipt of the report an order was passed on 4th June, 2008 by the Commissioner, Gram Vikas, Uttar Pradesh which is addressed to the District Magistrate, Allahabad that action be taken against the petitioner in terms of the directions of the Lokayukta. It may be noted that the Lokayukta in his recommendation had directed that a sum of Rs. 5.01 lacs be recovered from the petitioner. Another order was passed by the Chief Development Officer, Allahabad, which was addressed to the petitioner directing him to deposit the sum of Rs. 5.01 lacs in the State Treasury. By another order dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the District Magistrate, Allahabad directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5.01 lacs along with interest within 10 days in the State Treasury failing which the same shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. 6. 5.01 lacs in the State Treasury. By another order dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the District Magistrate, Allahabad directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5.01 lacs along with interest within 10 days in the State Treasury failing which the same shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Lokayukta submited his report action on the said report was required to be taken by the competent authority, but in the present case no action has been taken by the competent authority. 7. Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1975 reads as under: "(1) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or any other person, the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta shall be a report in writing, recommend to the public servant and the competent authority concerned that such injustice or undue hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report. (2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1), shall within one month of the expiry of the term specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta, or as the case may be, the Up-Lokayukta, the action taken for compliance with the report. (3) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving an allegation has been made, the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation can be substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendation along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. (4) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and intimate within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the Lokayukta or, as the case may be, the Up-Lokayukta, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. (4) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and intimate within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the Lokayukta or, as the case may be, the Up-Lokayukta, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. (5) If the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-section (1) and (3), he shall close the case under information to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned, but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the complainant concerned. (6) The Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of their functions under this Act to the Governor. (7) On receipt of a special report under sub-section (5) or the annual report under sub-section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature. (8) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 10, the Lokayukta may at his discretion make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him or by an Up-Lokayukta, which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest, in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate." 8. A reading of the provisions of Section 12 shows that after investigation into the complaint against a public servant, the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta shall by a report in writing recommend to the public servant and the competent authority concerned that such injustice or undue hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner, as may be specified in the report. 9. Under sub-section (2) of Section 12, the competent authority to whom the report is sent shall within one month intimate to the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta, as the case may be, the action taken in compliance with the report. 10. 9. Under sub-section (2) of Section 12, the competent authority to whom the report is sent shall within one month intimate to the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta, as the case may be, the action taken in compliance with the report. 10. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 provides that after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint is received if Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation can be substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by a report in writing communicate his findings and recommendation along with the relevant materials and evidence to the competent authority. 11. Sub-section (4) of Section 12 provides that the competent authority shall examine the report and intimate within 3 months to the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta, as the case may be, of the action taken or proposed to be taken. 12. The competent authority has been defined in Section 2(c) of the Act which to read as under: "Competent authority, in relation to a public servant means,- (i) in the case of a Minister or Secretary or member of the Legislative Assembly or of the Legislative Council-the Chief Minister. (ii) in the case of any other public servant-such authority as may be prescribed;" 13. In the present case, the petitioner indisputably was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, therefore, in his case, the competent authority would be the Chief Minister of the State concerned. In the present case, we find that after submission of the report/recommendation by the Lokayukta on 22.7.2005 action has been ordered to be taken against the petitioner, first by the Commissioner Gram Vikas, Uttar Pradesh through his letter dated 4th June, 2008 and then by the Chief Development Officer, Allahabad through his letter dated 6.8.2008 (Annexure-3). In compliance of the order of the Commissioner dated 4.7.2008, the District Magistrate has issued the order dated 11.2.2009 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5.01 lacs in the Government Treasury within 10 days failing which the said amount would be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. There is no order of the competent authority, i.e., the Chief Minister showing action taken or proposing action to be taken. 14. There is no order of the competent authority, i.e., the Chief Minister showing action taken or proposing action to be taken. 14. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the impugned orders have been justified, but there is a complete silence with regard to the action taken by the competent authority namely, the Chief Minister in the present case. There is not even a whisper that the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta was ever forwarded to the Chief Minister for action to be taken. It is not disputed that the competent authority, in the case of petitioner for taking action, is the Chief Minister. 15. We, therefore, hold that the entire action taken against the petitioner by issuing the orders dated 4.7.2008, 6.8.2008 and 11.2.2009 without there being any order of competent authority namely, the Chief Minister are wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and we, therefore, liable to be quashed. We, therefore, partly allow this writ petition and quash the orders dated 4.7.2008, 6.8.2008 and 11.2.2009. We direct that the respondent no.2 Lokayukta to submit the report/recommendation dated 22.7.2005 before the Chief Minister within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, who shall then proceed to take appropriate action in accordance with law and the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 1975, within further 4 months thereafter.