YOGENDER PRASHAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya Singh and Sri Arshdeep Singh, Advocates for the petitioner in WPCRL Nos. 833/2010, 834/2010 and 847/2010, Sri Charanjeet Singh Bakhshi, Advocate with Sri Raj Kumar Chugh and Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocates for the petitioner in WPCRL No. 854/2010 and Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Addl. Advocate General with Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A., Sri Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel and Sri Lalit Sharma, Brief Holder, for the State.

(2.) THIS matter was heard at length on 3rd December, 2010, and was posted today for further hearing. Today, after hearing the Additional Advocate General at some length, a request was made for adjournment so that a counter affidavit could be filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 i.e. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Home, since serious allegations were made against the functioning of the State Government vis -a -vis Honble the Chief Minister of the State. These petitions were filed in September, 2010, against the issuance of the First Information Report, and time was granted to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to file counter affidavit. The State in its own wisdom chose only to file a counter on behalf of respondent no. 2 and did not choose to file the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 1. The matter was heard on 3rd December, 2010, and today on 6th December, 2010, with the intention to decide the matter finally, and after hearing at some length, a request for adjournment has now been made. Permission is granted. Six weeks time is allowed to respondent no. 1 to file a detailed parawise counter affidavit in all the writ petitions, which are connected herewith.

(3.) WRIT Petition No. 833 of 2010 has been filed by Sri Yogender Prashad for the quashing of the First Information Report No. 13/2010 dated 6th September, 2010. A perusal of the First Information Report indicates that the said petitioner has allegedly misused his authority as Chairman of the Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'UJVNL) and as Special Advisor (Energy) to the Chief Minister to bring undue benefit to a company known as M/s. Kayviate International Company and caused undue harm and loss to the State Government to the tune of Rs. 2.5 crores between the period 2005 -2008. The allegation in the First Information Report is, that the petitioner gave pre -tender specification consultancy work to the said Company in six projects, which could have been done by the officials of the Nigam itself. It is alleged that the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman and Special Advisor (Energy) hatched a conspiracy with this Company by misusing his authority in giving the project. It is stated in this First Information Report that in Kaliganga First and Second Projects, the contract was awarded to M/s Kayviate International Company to re -examine the detailed project report awarding a sum of Rs. 12 lacs. The First Information Report indicates that this work could have been done by the officials of the Nigam itself instead of allocating it to an outside company. With regard to Maneri Bhali Second Project, the contract was given for Rs. 1.52 crores for electrical and civil work, and to monitor the commissioning of the project. The allegation is, that the monitoring of the commissioning of the project is always done by the officials of the Nigam and such contract was awarded by Sri Yogender Prashad by misusing his authority. In Vyasi Hydro Electric Project, the commission was given to this company for Rs. 12.5 lacs. In Pathari and Mohamadpur Projects, the contract was given for Rs. 12.81 lacs for review of the detailed project report etc., in which the allegation is that the same could have been done by the officials of the Nigam. Similarly, in Lakhwad and Vyasi Projects, the contract was given for Rs. 26.30 lacs to the company to review the old project, in which the allegation again is that the same could have been done by the officials of the Nigam. Similarly, in Asiganga First and Second Projects, the project was given for Rs. 37.06 lacs to monitor the project and give technical advice, in which the allegation is that the same could have been done by the officials of the Nigam.