ANIL BANSAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner describing himself a social activist, as pro bono publico, has preferred this public interest litigation averring that the respondent No.2, the Minister, Department of Revenue, has purchased large chunk of immovable properties after being elected to the Member of Legislative Assembly in the year 2003 and the sale-deeds have been executed after the election and that apart he has also purchased number of properties in the names of his son and other relatives on many a guise. It is contended that he is a public servant under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') and hence, the Central Bureau of Investigation be commanded to hold an enquiry regarding acquisition of disproportionate assets by abusing the official position and to proceed against him as per law.

(2.) The facts which are essential to be adumbrated are that the election to the Members of Legislative Assembly was held in the year 2003 and the respondent No.2 after being elected was appointed as the Minister of State, Department of Revenue. At the time of filing of nomination form the respondent No.2 had submitted an affidavit containing the details of movable and immovable properties and the deposits in the bank possessed by him and his family members. The said affidavit has been brought on record as Annexure-P-1. It is set forth that after having been appointed as a Minister he has purchased immovable properties in his name, in the name of his family members and friends which is manifestly beyond his known sources of income and the properties are valued more than one crore and their valuation is patent from a bare perusal of the sale-deeds. A detailed chart has been given in the writ petition and the documents in support of the same have been brought on record as Annexures-P-2 to P-10.

(3.) It is putforth that the said respondent has engaged himself in various illegal activities and pressurized various local authorities to do illegal acts. It is specifically urged that he has interfered in the functioning of Krishi Upaj Mandi in the guise of growth and development of market area which has really no connection with the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. It is alleged that a plot has been allotted in favour of his son Sandeep Patel for establishment of a petrol pump and similarly some of his close relatives have been allotted valuable plots in the area belonging to the market committee. It is further putforth that the said respondent by misusing his official capacity has got allotted an E-Type Bungalow on Harda-Indore Road belonging to the Revenue Department and the respondent No.2 has got huge amount spent for modification of the said Bungalow. A reference has been made to the reply of the Chief Minister stating that there is no provision for allotment of government residence in favour of Members of Legislative Assembly in their Home Town. It is alleged that in the marriage of son of the second respondent enormous money has been spent in reception as more than 12000 cards were distributed and the daughter-in-law had received valuable gifts from him which was worth more than Rs.50 lacs. He has also abused his official position to get his photographs put on the gates installed at various places of Harda Town. It is averred that the respondent No.2 has gathered huge amount of money during his tenure as a Member of Legislative Assembly and the Minister of State and he is to be made accountable for the same.