NASEEMUDDIN SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners basically to obtain an order of the Court quashing the recommendation dated 15th March, 2012 made by the Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh to the Chief Minister of the Uttar Pradesh to pass an appropriate order in connection with the investigation through an appropriate agency. Other incidental prayers have also been made in connection thereto.

(2.) The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner no. 1 is an Ex-Cabinet Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereas presently both the petitioners i.e. petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, who is wife of petitioner no. 1, are said to be Members of the Legislative Council of the State. A complaint was filed before the Lokayukta levelling certain allegations against the petitioners. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Lokayukta, the petitioners filed their reply to such complaint. On 22nd February, 2012 the Lokayukta made recommendation to the Chief Minister, being competent authority, recommending for investigation by any Central Investigating Agency, like Central Bureau of Investigation or Enforcement Directorate, on the points referred to in such recommendation and to take further action according to the investigation/enquiry report. The Cabinet Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, on behalf of the competent authority, vide its report/letter dated 27th February, 2012 turned down the request of the Lokayukta and informed the decision of the competent authority to close the matter. The Lokayukta again on 15th March, 2012 made the recommendation to the competent authority to review its earlier decision taken on the recommendation dated 22nd February, 2012 with regard to maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Such recommendation dated 15th March, 2012 of the Lokayukta is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended before us that as per Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (hereinafter in short called as the "Act") a report is to be filed by the Lokayukta to the competent authority to examine the same, for his satisfaction, to the extent whether the proceedings will be closed or will be proceeded further and he may also make a special report to the Governor, who, on receipt of such special report, shall cause a copy thereof together with explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature. Neither the Lokayukta is empowered to recommend for investigation by any agency nor he has any power to send the matter to the competent authority for review of such investigation when in the earlier occasion the competent authority has closed the investigation. After sending the report, the Lokayukta becomes functus officio. Review is a creature of the statute. No review can be made beyond the provisions of the Act. In support of his submissions as regards power of review, Mr. Shashi Nandan has relied upon the judgements (Patel Narshi Thakershi and others Vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, 1970 AIR(SC) 1273), (A.K. Roy and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1986 4 SCC 326), [Dr (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and others, 1987 4 SCC 525] and (All Kerala Private College Teachers Association Vs. Nair Service Society and others, 1994 5 SCC 479).