MADHURESH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 5.11.96 as a Public Interest case impleading the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Union of India and Sri Sita Ram Kesari, President of the Congress Party, as respondents 1 to 3 respectively. The relief sought in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that a thorough and proper investigation is conducted into the complaint of the petitioner dated 7.10.96 submitted to the 1st respondent.

(2.) Petitioner claims to be a journalist and to have worked as private Secretary from 1988 to 1990, to one Sri Shyam Sunder Singh Dhiraj (formerly Urban Development Minister of State of Bihar) and petitioner says that person was a "close confident and right hand man of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner claims to have been Editor of a magazine called "Sampurna Kranthi" of Bihar during 1974. Petitioner submits that he has association with some political leaders and that he also came into close contact with the 3rd respondent and he says that thus he had opportunity to "see the working" of the 3rd respondent from very close quarters after he became Secretary to Mr. Dhiraj. Petitioner alleges that not only did he come into contact with the 3rd respon- dent, but with the latter's son and daughter-in-law and other members of his family, including one grandson and granddaughter-in-law and five grand-daughters and their husbands. The broad allegation is that the 3rd respondent, who came from humble beginning had amassed a huge amount of wealth for himself and his family members, especially after 1979 when the 3rd respondent became treasurer of Congress party. The 3rd respondent became a Member of the Lok Sabha in 1967 and thereafter a member of the Rajya Sabha in 1972 and was continuously been a Member of the Rajya Sabha. He became treasurer of the same party at the national level in 1979 till September, 1996 when he became President of the said party, it is also mentioned that the 3rd respondent was a Minister of State in the Central Government between 1975-79, 1986-86 and a Cabinet Minister from 1991-96. Allegations are made that neither the 3rd respondent nor his son, daughter-in-law nor grandson nor grand daughter-in-law have even paid income tax (except what the 3rd respondent might have paid as Minister) and that the 3rd respondent and his family members "have amassed huge amount of property valued over crores of rupees" since 1979. It is stated that the petitioner "has personal knowledge" of a number of movable and immovable properties acquired by the 3rd respondent and his immediate family members. In para 5 of the writ petition, petitioner set out, vide sub-paras (a) to (f), a list of the said properties. In para 6 he says that the 3rd respondent's son who has no work nor received any income "has also acquired a great deal of movable property" during the past .few years. Prior to 1991, the 3rd respondent's son worked as Liason Officer, SKG Distillery on a meagre salary. A list of movable assets of the 3rd respondent's son are set out in para 6, subparas (a) to (d). Then, in para 7, petitioner has set out in sub-paras (a) to (c) the assets acquired by the 3rd respondent's grandson, who is also "unemployed". In para 8, petitioner refers to the 5 grand daughters of 3rd respondent, who were married between 1983 to 1994, that their husbands had only modest means but they have all become "quite wealthy" some of them having assets worth "crores" of rupees. In sub-paras (a) to (c) certain details of the alleged assets of the grand son-in-law are set out. In para 9 petitioner has made an allegation that he had personally seen the 3rd respondent receiving huge sum of money in suit-cases at his Delhi residence from unidentified businessman while he was a Minister. Petitioner says he has "personally seen" huge bundles of currency notes in cloth bags being given by the 3rd respondent to several MLAs as "bribe, to vote in his favour for this Rajya Sabha Membership, both in 1988 and 1994. It is then stated that the petitioner approached the CBI Director on 5.10.96 and he advised the petitioner to file a regular FIR "on which he promised to take action". The petitioner says he filed an affidavit on 7.10.96 and "handed over" the same to the Director, CBI. Four weeks passed by thereafter and "no tangible action has been taken by the CBI on the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner has repeatedly inquired from the CBI Office on the action taken on his complain but he has not received any response about the same." The petitioner therefore says that "he has reason to believe that the CBI and its Director are not going to proceed on this matter until they have political clearance from the Prime Minister because of the fact that the survival of the present Government had been on the support of the Congress party" headed by the 3rd respondent and therefore the petitioner .is forced to move the Court.

(3.) On 7.11.96, when the matter was listed for admission we did not think it necessary to issue notice to the CBI or 3rd respondent but issued notice to the Union of India limited to filing a "status report" and adjourned the matter to 2.12.96. On that day, learned Additional Solicitor General of India Sri K.N. Bhat appearing for Union of India and also CBI contended that the petition was not maintainable, that norms must be laid down in such PIL matters. However, without prejudice to the said contentions, he submitted that a status report, will be filed as per the order dated 7.11.96 on 17.12.96, as directed by us. Matter came up on 19.12.96, and on that day written submissions were filed by Sri K.N. Bhat regarding maintainability of the writ petition and the Status Report I was filed. Mr. G.L. Sanghi appeared for the 3rd respondent (though notice was not issued to 3rd respondent) and submitted that the petitioner was giving interviews in the media and damaging the reputation of the 3rd respondent and of his political party. The petitioner's counsel gave an undertaking that petitioner will not go to the media in connection with the subject matter of writ petition. The CBI asked 2 months time for filing a report. We granted time till 20.1.97. On 20.1.97, Status Report II was filed and further time was sought by CBI for filing a final report. In fact, counsel for 3rd respondent pressed for hearing of the case on that day but as detailed in the order dated 20.1.97, the case could not be taken up due to administrative reasons and was adjourned to 10.2.97. On 10.2.97, the 3rd "Status Report" was filed and arguments were heard on 12.2.97 and judgment reserved.