RAKESH DHAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavits filed today are taken on record as part thereof.

(2.) We have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, who was issued a letter dated 27.4.2013 by the Inspector, Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Department, Varanasi stating that in spite of having been requested to supply informations in proforma nos. 1 to 6, which had already been sent to the petitioner by the Vigilance Department, and also having been requested telephonically as also orally in that behalf, the petitioner had not furnished the required informations till that date as a result of which the inquiry for the said period starting from May 2007 to December 2011 regarding the acquisition of properties disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner was being stalled. The petitioner was further requested by the same letter that all the informations and the documents in respect of the known sources of income of the petitioner and the amounts expended by him had been procured by the Superintendent, Vigilance Department, Varanasi that the petitioner should have a glance of the informations contained in those documents on 27th and 28th of April, 2013 and furnish the informations as requested by the Vigilance Department.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner did not pay appropriate heed to the request made by the Vigilance Department by above letter dated 27.4.2013 which appears as one of the annexure to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.4.2013 and that prompted the Vigilance Department to issue another letter dated 28.4.2013 noting that in spite of having been provided the proformas no. 1 to 6 by registered letters dated 27.2.2013 and 19.2.2013 and in spite of having been requested to furnish the informations in those proformas on the acquisitions of assets, the petitioner had not responded to those requests. It was further stated in that letter dated 28.4.2013 that the petitioner was personally contacted at his residence at Rajendra Nagar, Batuwa Ghat, Allahabad and was also again requested to furnish the desired informations, but that had not been furnished as a result of which he was requested by letter dated 27.4.2013, which was sent to him by fax, to comply with the request so that the inquiry, which was being held for the period commencing from May 2007 and ending on December 2011, regarding the acquisition of assets by the petitioner allegedly disproportionate to the known sources of his income could be brought to a logical conclusion.