SHIV PRAKASH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief which has been sought in these proceedings is for a direction to the Enforcement Directorate to submit a report before the designated Court in compliance of an order of a Full Bench of this Court dated 1 August 2013. For convenience of reference, we extract the relief which has been sought hereinbelow:

(2.) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.5 to submit report before the designated Court in compliance of the full bench order dated 01.08.2013 passed in writ petition no. 24225 of 2009 (Amar Singh Vs State of UP & Others) connected with writ petition no. 4909 of 2010 (Shiv Kant Tripathi Versus State of UP & Others), with respect to Case Crime no. 458 of 2009 U/s 420, 467, 471, 120B I.P.C., read with section 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

(3.) The petition has been instituted in the form of a public interest litigation on the basis of a judgment of the Full Bench whose reference appears in the prayer extracted above. A public interest litigation (PIL No. 49437 of 2015, Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State of UP) is pending before this Court, where a direction was issued on 3 September 2015, requiring the Enforcement Directorate to apprise the Court of the steps which are taken after the judgment of the Full Bench dated 1 August 2013, by means of an affidavit and to file a status report for the perusal of the Court. Once the very issue, which is raised in these proceedings, is the subject matter of an earlier public interest litigation, it is not appropriate to allow a multiplication of petitions on the same subject particularly, having due regard to the relief which has been sought in a writ petition which is to enforce a judicial direction of the Full Bench. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner, should he be so advised, to intervene in the earlier public interest litigation and to urge all his submissions before the Court at the appropriate stage. This is subject to any objection as to his locus.