MAYAWATI Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: Writ Petition (crl.) 135 of 2008
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 135 OF 2008
Ms. Mayawati .... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P.Sathasivam,J.
1) The only question raised in this writ petition, filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is as to whether FIR No.
R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 lodged under Section
13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”)
against the petitioner herein to investigate into the matter of
alleged disproportionate assets is beyond the scope of the
directions passed by this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003
in I.A. No. 376 of 2003 in W.P. (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled
1
Page 2
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, (2003) 8 SCC
696?
2) The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition,
is summarized hereunder:
(a) On the date of filing of this writ petition before this Court,
the petitioner was the Chief Minister of U.P. Earlier also, the
petitioner had been the Chief Minister of U.P. for three times.
The petitioner had also served as a Member of Parliament
many a time both as a Member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
and had also served as a Member of Legislative Assembly and
Legislative Council of the State of U.P. The petitioner is a law
graduate and had been a teacher from 1977 to 1984. At
present, the petitioner is the President of a National Political
Party called as “Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)”, which is one of
the six National Parties recognized by the Election Commission
of India.
(b) This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003 in I.A. No. 387 of
2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta
vs. Union of India & Ors. directed the CBI to conduct an
inquiry on the basis of an I.A. filed in the aforesaid writ
petition alleging various irregularities committed by the
2
Page 3
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
Rs. 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
3
Page 4
Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act against several persons including the petitioner herein. In
the said FIR, certain details and several developments which
took place with regard to the aforesaid Project have been given.
As per the allegations contained in the report dated
11.09.2003, several irregularities were allegedly being found in
the aforesaid Project. Pursuant to the same, investigation has
been completed and the report was forwarded to obtain the
sanction from the competent authority, namely, the Governor
for prosecuting the Chief Minster of the State. The Governor,
by order dated 03.06.2007, declined to accord sanction to
prosecute the petitioner.
(f) According to the petitioner, in the aforesaid FIR, it was
stated that this Court also directed the CBI to conduct an
inquiry pertaining to the assets of the officers/individuals
concerned in the aforesaid Project as mentioned in the
judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid case in order to
ascertain whether any mis-appropriation of funds have been
done with regard to outflow of Rs. 17 crores released for the
construction of said Project. A perusal of the order dated
4
Page 5
18.09.2003 would reveal that whatever directions were issued
by this Court were only in respect of Rs. 17 crores alleged to
have been released without proper sanction and there is not
even a whisper about making an investigation into any other
assets of the persons involved in general. In other words, the
scope of the order of this Court was limited to the extent of
money released in the said Project and not otherwise. This is
clear from the order of this Court dated 18.09.2003 wherein it
had specifically observed about lodging of FIR only with regard
to Taj Heritage Corridor Project case. That order nowhere
mentioned about lodging of second FIR in regard to the
disproportionate assets of the petitioner.
(g) It is the further case of the petitioner that contrary to the
orders of this Court, with mala fide intentions, the CBI
registered another FIR being R.C. No. 19 of 2003 on the same
date i.e. 05.10.2003 only against the petitioner alleging therein
that in pursuance of the orders dated 21.08.2003, 11.09.2003
and 18.09.2003 passed by this Court, they conducted an
inquiry with regard to the acquiring of disproportionate
movable and immovable assets by the petitioner and her close
relatives and on the basis of this inquiry lodged the said FIR,
5
Page 6
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 lodge an FIR in respect to
the alleged disproportionate assets and investigate the entire
6
Page 7
assets of the petitioner from the year 1995 which have no
relation with the case of Taj Heritage Corridor Project which
came into being only in August, 2003. In spite of several
reminders and further representations, till date no
communication has been received from the CBI. The absence
of any reply by any of the authorities including the CBI shows
that there was no direction or authority to the CBI in the order
dated 18.09.2003 to lodge an FIR or to investigate into the
assets of the petitioner which are not related to the said
Project. Hence, it was incumbent upon the CBI to comply with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (in short ‘DSPE Act’) which makes it
obligatory to obtain the consent of the Government of the
concerned State to confer jurisdiction on the CBI to investigate
in any case arising within the jurisdiction of a State. In the
present case, FIR was lodged and investigation was conducted
without obtaining consent of the State Government which is in
flagrant violation of Section 6 of the DSPE Act. In the absence
of the consent of the State Government, the whole exercise of
the CBI about lodging of FIR and investigating into the assets
of the petitioner not related to Taj Heritage Corridor Project is
7
Page 8
without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same is non est and
void ab initio.
(j) It is further pointed out that this Court in its order dated
25.10.2004, after perusing the investigation reports filed by
the CBI, held that no link was found between the irregularities
alleged to have been found in respect to the assets matter and
the Taj Heritage Corridor Project which was the subject-matter
of the reference before the Special Bench.
(k) The fact that this Court had stopped monitoring the
assets case was again reiterated in the order dated 07.08.2006
passed by this Court.
(l) On 27.11.2006, this Court finally decided the issue in
respect to the FIR being R.C. No. 18 relating to the Taj Heritage
Corridor matter reported in M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam)
vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 110. In the said
judgment, this Court observed that it should not embark upon
an enquiry in regard to the allegations of criminal misconduct
in order to form an opinion one way or the other so as to prima
facie determine 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
8
Page 9
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 the Governor was also challenged before this
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 434 of 2007. However, this
Court, by order dated 06.08.2007, dismissed the same as
withdrawn. Even thereafter, the petitioner has made several
9
Page 10
representations to the Director, CBI to drop the investigation
on the basis of the aforesaid FIR. However, the CBI is bent
upon harassing the petitioner. Hence, she approached this
Court by filing the present writ petition.
Stand of the CBI-Respondent No.2:
3) Pursuant to the notice issued on 15.05.2008, the CBI-
Respondent No.2 herein has filed its counter affidavit wherein
it was stated that in the order dated 18.09.2003 of this Court,
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 was mentioned that “apart from what
has been stated in the reports with regard to the assets, the
learned ASG Mr. Altaf Ahmad has submitted that further
inquiry/investigation is necessary by the CBI”. It is further
stated 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 by the CBI that the
FIR No. RC 19 dated 05.10.2003 under Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act reveal the details of huge amount
10
Page 11
of disproportionate assets possessed by the petitioner and her
family members beyond their known sources of income.
Further case of the petitioner:
4) A rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit and
supplementary counter affidavits have also been filed wherein
subsequent developments which took place during the
pendency of the writ petition, especially, passing of various
orders by the Income Tax Authorities, Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in favour of the petitioner
for different assessment years have been mentioned holding
that all income shown in her accounts in the form of gift or
otherwise are genuine and legal, covering from 1995 to 2004 of
which period the assessments were reopened, investigated and
reassessed.
Case of the intervenor:
5) During the pendency of this writ petition, which was filed
in 2008, one Mr. Kamlesh Verma has filed I.A. No. 8 of 2010
claiming that he is a social worker and petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 2019 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
11
Page 12
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 when orders were passed on several dates commencing
from 2003 ending with 2009.
6) In the light of the above pleadings of the parties, we heard
Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
12
Page 13
Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General for the
Union of India and CBI and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the intervener.
7) The relief(s) sought for in the writ petition are reproduced
hereunder:-
“I. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019/2003 dated 05.10.2003 lodged by Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Lucknow and investigation proceedings being made in pursuance thereof.
II. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent no.2 and 3 from proceeding further in pursuance to the said FIR and direct them to close and drop the said proceedings;
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the release of all seized bank accounts of the petitioner which have been seized by CBI in pursuance to the impugned FIR.
IV. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that this Hon’ble court under Article 32/136/142 of the Constitution of India or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), an establishment created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to investigate a cognizable offence which is alleged to have taken place in a State without the consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
V. Issue any other Writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”
8) It is clear from the narration of facts as well as the
relief(s) sought for in the writ petition that the petitioner is
13
Page 14
aggrieved of second FIR being No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated
05.10.2003. It is also clear that the petitioner has assailed the
said FIR on the ground that there was no direction by this
Court in its order dated 18.09.2003 which could have
empowered the CBI to lodge two FIRs, namely, (i) FIR No. R.C.
0062003A0018 dated 05.10.2003 under Section 120-B read
with Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC and Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act against the petitioner
as well 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 vs. Union of India and Others, (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
14
Page 15
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
their known sources of income.
9) As against the abovesaid stand of the CBI, the petitioner,
in the form of rejoinder and supplementary affidavits, has
pointed out that all income shown in her accounts in the form
of gift or otherwise are genuine and legal covering from 1995 to
2004. It is further pointed out that all orders passed by the
Income Tax Authorities have been brought on record and all of
them attained finality and no further appeal is pending against
them and all the assessments were reopened investigated and
re-assessed.
10) The petitioner has also filed a consolidated compilation of
orders passed by this Court commencing from 16.07.2003
ending with 27.04.2009. Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned
15
Page 16
ASG took us through all those orders. Among those orders, we
are very much concerned about the order dated 18.09.2003.
Before going into the various directions issued in the said
order, it is also relevant to refer the earlier orders dated
16.07.2003, 21.08.2003 and 11.09.2003. It is clear from
those orders that this Court by order dated 30.12.1996 in M.C.
Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) vs. Union of India and
Others, (1997) 2 SCC 353 issued a number of directions to
protect the national and world heritage monument, namely,
the Taj. Thereafter, a number of interim applications were
filed by the persons concerned who were required to shift their
business or manufacturing activities. This Court has also
appointed a Monitoring Committee to report whether those
directions issued by this Court are complied with or not.
11) In the order dated 16.07.2003 – M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 706, this Court, in order to
find out who cleared the project, i.e., construction of the
‘Heritage Corridor’ at Agra and for what purpose it was cleared
without obtaining necessary sanction from the Department
concerned and whether there was any illegality or irregularity
committed by the officers/persons, came to the conclusion that
16
Page 17
inquiry by CBI is necessary. Accordingly, in para 16 of the
said order, this Court directed the Director of CBI to see that
inquiry with regard to any illegality/irregularity committed by
the officers/persons be conducted at the earliest and directed
to submit a report to this Court. This Court also directed the
CBI to submit Preliminary report within four weeks and final
report within two months from 16.07.2003.
12) In the next order dated 21.08.2003, M.C Mehta vs.
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 Rs. 17 crores were released without proper
sanction.
13) The next order is dated 18.09.2003 - M.C. Mehta vs.
Union of India and Others, 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
17
Page 18
involved and verify their assets in view of the fact that it was
alleged that an amount of Rs. 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 hearing, the CBI has pointed out that income tax
returns of various persons including the petitioner were
collected from different income tax authorities. In the course
of the said proceedings, apart from various reports with regard
to the assets, the learned ASG - Mr. Altaf Ahmed submitted
that further inquiry/investigation is necessary by the CBI.
Based on his request, this Court issued the following
directions:
“13. Considering the aforesaid report and the serious irregularities/illegalities committed in carrying out the so- called Taj Heritage Corridor Project, we direct:
(a) the Central Government to hold immediate departmental inquiry against Shri K.C. Mishra, former Secretary, Environment, Union of India;
(b) the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold departmental inquiry against Shri R.K. Sharma, former Principal Environment Secretary, Shri P.L. Punia, former Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Shri D.S. Bagga, Chief Secretary and Shri V.K. Gupta, former Secretary, Environment;
18
Page 19
(c) NPCC or the competent authority including the Central Government to hold inquiry against Shri S.C. Bali, Managing Director of NPCC;
(d) the State Government as well as the officers concerned of the Central Government are directed to see that departmental inquiry is completed within four months from today. The State of U.P. and the Central Government would appoint respective inquiry officers for holding inquiry, within a period of seven days from today;
(e) it would be open to the State Government if called for to pass order for suspension of the delinquent officers in accordance with the rules;
(f) for the officers and the persons involved in the matter, CBI is directed to lodge an FIR and make further investigation in accordance with law;
(g) CBI shall take appropriate steps for holding investigation against the Chief Minister Ms Mayawati and Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former Minister for Environment, U.P. and other officers involved;
(h) the Income Tax Department is also directed to cooperate in further investigation which is required to be carried out by CBI;
(i) CBI would take into consideration all the relevant Acts i.e. IPC/Prevention of Corruption Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc.;
(j) CBI to submit a self-contained note to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh as well as to the Cabinet 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
19
Page 20
carrying out the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. The main
allegation relates to an amount of Rs. 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 Rs. 17 crores were released in September, 2002.
15) A thorough scrutiny of all the orders including the
specific directions dated 18.09.2003 clearly show that the
same was confined only in respect to the case relating to Taj
Corridor Project which was the subject-matter of reference
before the Special Bench. It is relevant to point out para 13(f)
of the order dated 18.09.2003 which makes it clear that the
CBI could have lodged only one FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0018
20
Page 21
dated 05.10.2003. In other words, inasmuch as there being no
consideration of alleged disproportionate assets at any stage of
the proceedings while dealing with the Taj Corridor matter,
there could not have been and in fact there was no such
direction to lodge another FIR being No. R.C. 0062003A0019
dated 05.10.2003 exclusively against the petitioner under the
P.C. Act.
16) In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
pressed into service a Constitution Bench decision rendered in
the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.,
(2010) 3 SCC 571. After considering various constitutional
provisions relating to the State and the Union as well as
Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the Bench has concluded thus:
“69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.
21
Page 22
70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although 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 an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.”
17) As rightly pointed out that in the absence of any direction
by this Court to lodge an FIR into the matter of alleged
disproportionate assets against the petitioner, the Investigating
Officer could not take resort to Section 157 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) wherein the
Officer-in-charge of a Police Station is empowered under
22
Page 23
Section 156 of the Code to investigate on information received
or otherwise. Section 6 of the DSPE Act prohibits the CBI from
exercising its powers and jurisdiction without the consent of
the Government of the State. It is pointed out on the side of
the petitioner that, in the present case, no such consent was
obtained by the CBI and submitted that the second FIR against
the petitioner is contrary to Section 157 of the Code and
Section 6 of the DSPE Act. It is not in dispute that the consent
was declined by the Governor of the State and in such
circumstance also the second FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019
dated 05.10.2003 is not sustainable.
18) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG as well as Ms.
Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the intervener after taking
us through the order dated 18.09.2003 and other orders
submitted that the CBI was well within its power to pursue the
second FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. Among
various directions, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG very
much pressed into service the direction in para 13(g) of the
order dated 18.09.2003. The said direction reads as under:-
“(g) CBI shall take appropriate steps for holding investigation against the Chief Minister Ms Mayawati and Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former Minister for Environment, U.P. and other officers involved;”
23
Page 24
According to Mr. Mohan Parasaran, liberty was granted by this
Court to proceed against the petitioner. He also relied on para
9 of the order dated 25.10.2004 – M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 137, which reads as under:-
“Re: FIR RC 0062003A0019
9. The further investigation report filed by CBI in this connection while indicating large-scale irregularities does not in fact show any link between such irregularities and the Taj Corridor matter which is the subject-matter of reference before the Special Bench. CBI therefore is at liberty to proceed with and take action on the basis of 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 vs. Union of India
and Others, (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
24
Page 25
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
perusal of the same shows that the Assistant Registrar of this
Court has been described as the Complainant. On going
through all the orders, we are of the view that the said
objection of the petitioner cannot be rejected. A perusal of the
series of orders passed in W.P. No. 13381 of 1984 - M.C.
Mehta vs. Union of India and Others clearly show that the
order dated 18.09.2003 is preceded by other orders issued
from time to time only in connection with Taj Heritage Corridor
Project. While considering the directions issued in the order
dated 18.09.2003, it is incumbent to refer the orders dated
16.07.2003, 21.08.2003 and 11.09.2003. We have already
noted that those previous three orders passed by this Court
state that the CBI was directed to interrogate the persons
involved and also to verify their assets because it was alleged
that the amount of Rs. 17 crores was released without proper
25
Page 26
sanction. It is relevant to mention that in the order dated
25.10.2003 (which we have already quoted in the earlier paras)
this Court mentioned that it was not monitoring
disproportionate assets case since no link could be found
between the Taj Corridor matter and the assets of the
petitioner. (para 9 of the order dated 25.10.2004) It is also
relevant to refer the next order dated 07.08.2006 wherein the
same was once again reiterated. It is true that in the order
dated 25.10.2004, liberty was granted to the CBI that in the
event any link is disclosed in the course of such investigation
between the Taj Corridor Project and the assets, CBI is free to
bring it to the notice of this Court. The fact remains that the
investigation report filed by the CBI before this Court which
was considered on 25.10.2004 shows that large-scale
irregularities does not show any link between such
irregularities and the Taj Corridor matter. The said
finding/conclusion by this Court was based on the
investigation report of the CBI. In view of the same, we are
satisfied that CBI cannot be permitted to take the view that
two cases, namely, Taj Corridor and Disproportionate Assets
case are same and the investigation was done in both the
26
Page 27
cases as per the directions of this Court. After reading the
entire orders dated 18.09.2003 and 25.10.2004, the stand of
the CBI is to be rejected as unacceptable.
19) It is also brought to our notice that merely because
various orders of this Court including the order dated
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
27
Page 28
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 particularly,
irregularities therein. In fact, the direction was confined to
find out as to who cleared the project of Taj Corridor and for
what purpose it was cleared and whether there was any
illegality or irregularity committed by officers and other
persons concerned in the State. We have already noted all
those orders which clearly state that the CBI is free to
interrogate and verify the assets of the officers/persons
relating to release of Rs. 17 crores in connection with Taj
Corridor matter.
21) As discussed above and after reading all the orders of this
Court which are available in the ‘compilation’, we are satisfied
that this Court being the ultimate custodian of the
fundamental rights did not issue any direction to the CBI to
conduct a roving inquiry against the assets of the petitioner
commencing from 1995 to 2003 even though the Taj Heritage
Corridor Project was conceived only in July, 2002 and an
28
Page 29
amount of Rs. 17 crores was released in August/September,
2002. The method adopted by the CBI is unwarranted and
without jurisdiction. We are also satisfied that the CBI has
proceeded without proper understanding 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 have
already referred to the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal (supra) wherein this Court observed that only
when this Court after considering material on record comes to
a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie
case calling for investigation by the CBI for the alleged offence,
an order directing inquiry by the CBI could be passed and that
too after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected person.
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
29
Page 30
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.
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
30
Page 31
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 which is still
pending. It is pointed out that intervener was not associated
with the Taj Corridor matter before this Court at any stage
when the orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003, 11.09.2003,
18.09.2003, 19.07.2004, 25.10.2004, 07.08.2006,
27.11.2006, 06.08.2007, 10.10.2007 and 27.04.2007 were
passed. It is true that the intervener has no legal right to
intervene in the matter of this kind where CBI has been
prosecuting the case vigorously against the petitioner.
Inasmuch as the intervener has challenged the order of the
Governor of U.P. declining to grant sanction to prosecute the
petitioner and the said matter is pending in the Lucknow
Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in order to assist the
Court, we heard his counsel Ms. Kamini Jaiswal. It is true
that this Court has held that when investigating agency like
CBI and Union of India are contesting the matter effectively,
the third party was not permitted to canvass correctness of the
judgment by way of PIL (Union of India & Anr. vs. W.N.
Chadha, 1993 (Supp) 4 SCC 260) and Janata Dal vs. H.S.
31
Page 32
Chowdhary & Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 756. While accepting the
above principles reiterated in those decisions, in view of the
peculiar facts that the intervener - Kamlesh Verma is pursuing
his writ petition against the petitioner in the High Court, we
heard his counsel to assist the Court. In view of the above
special circumstance, we allow I.A. No. 8 of 2010 and the same
cannot be cited as a precedent for other cases.
24) In the light of the above discussion, 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 in lodging FIR No. R.C.
0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. The impugned FIR is
without jurisdiction and any investigation pursuant thereto is
illegal and liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed. The writ
petition is allowed.
………….…………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
………….…………………………J. (DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI; JULY 6, 2012.
32