TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 696? 2. The case of the Petitioner as stated in the writ petition, is summarized hereunder: (a) On the date of filing of this writ petition before this Court, the Petitioner was the Chief Minister of U.P. Earlier also, the Petitioner had been the Chief Minister of U.P. for three times. The Petitioner had also served as a Member of Parliament many a time both as a Member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and had also served as a Member of Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of the State of U.P. The Petitioner is a law graduate and had been a teacher from 1977 to 1984. At present, the Petitioner is the President of a National Political Party called as "Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)", which is one of the six National Parties recognized by the Election Commission of India. (b) This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003 in I.A. No. 387 of 2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry on the basis of an I.A. filed in the aforesaid writ petition alleging various irregularities committed by the officers/persons in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and to subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of Rs. 17 crores alleged to have been released without proper sanction and there is not even a whisper about making an investigation into any other assets of the persons involved in general. In other words, the scope of the order of this Court was limited to the extent of money released in the said Project and not otherwise. This is clear from the order of this Court dated 18.09.2003 wherein it had specifically observed about lodging of FIR only with regard to Taj Heritage Corridor Project case. That order nowhere mentioned about lodging of second FIR in regard to the disproportionate assets of the Petitioner. (g) It is the further case of the Petitioner that contrary to the orders of this Court, with mala fide intentions, the CBI registered another FIR being R.C. No. 19 of 2003 on the same date i.e. 05.10.2003 only against the Petitioner alleging therein that in pursuance of the orders dated 21.08.2003, 11.09.2003 and 18.09.2003 passed by this Court, they conducted an inquiry with regard to the acquiring of disproportionate movable and immovable assets by the Petitioner and her close relatives and on the basis of this inquiry lodged the said FIR, whereas there was no d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Petitioner not related to Taj Heritage Corridor Project is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same is non est and void ab initio. (j) It is further pointed out that this Court in its order dated 25.10.2004, after perusing the investigation reports filed by the CBI, held that no link was found between the irregularities alleged to have been found in respect to the assets matter and the Taj Heritage Corridor Project which was the subject-matter of the reference before the Special Bench. (k) The fact that this Court had stopped monitoring the assets case was again reiterated in the order dated 07.08.2006 passed by this Court. (l) On 27.11.2006, this Court finally decided the issue in respect to the FIR being R.C. No. 18 relating to the Taj Heritage Corridor matter reported in M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 110. In the said judgment, this Court observed that it should not embark upon an enquiry in regard to the allegations of criminal misconduct in order to form an opinion one way or the other so as to prima facie determine guilt of a person or otherwise. When the matter came up before the Governor of U.P. to grant or refuse sanction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 13(2) read with Section 13 of the PC Act reveal the details of huge amount of disproportionate assets possessed by the Petitioner and her family members beyond their known sources of income. Further case of the Petitioner: 4. A rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits have also been filed wherein subsequent developments which took place during the pendency of the writ petition, especially, passing of various orders by the Income Tax Authorities, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in favour of the Petitioner for different assessment years have been mentioned holding that all income shown in her accounts in the form of gift or otherwise are genuine and legal, covering from 1995 to 2004 of which period the assessments were reopened, investigated and reassessed. Case of the intervenor: 5. During the pendency of this writ petition, which was filed in 2008, one Mr. Kamlesh Verma has filed I.A. No. 8 of 2010 claiming that he is a social worker and Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2009 (M/B) concerning FIR being RC No. 18 dated 05.10.2003 for intervention in the above matter and to assist the Court. By point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation (CBI), an establishment created under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to investigate a cognizable offence which is alleged to have taken place in a State without the consent of the State Government Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. V. Issue any other Writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. 8. It is clear from the narration of facts as well as the relief(s) sought for in the writ petition that the Petitioner is aggrieved of second FIR being No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. It is also clear that the Petitioner has assailed the said FIR on the ground that there was no direction by this Court in its order dated 18.09.2003 which could have empowered the CBI to lodge two FIRs, namely, (i) FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0018 dated 05.10.2003 Under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act against the Petitioner as well as 10 other accused persons in respect of Taj Corridor matter and (ii) FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 Under Section 13(2) read with Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ications were filed by the persons concerned who were required to shift their business or manufacturing activities. This Court has also appointed a Monitoring Committee to report whether those directions issued by this Court are complied with or not. 11. In the order dated 16.07.2003 - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 706, this Court, in order to find out who cleared the project, i.e., construction of the 'Heritage Corridor' at Agra and for what purpose it was cleared without obtaining necessary sanction from the Department concerned and whether there was any illegality or irregularity committed by the officers/persons, came to the conclusion that inquiry by CBI is necessary. Accordingly, in para 16 of the said order, this Court directed the Director of CBI to see that inquiry with regard to any illegality/irregularity committed by the officers/persons be conducted at the earliest and directed to submit a report to this Court. This Court also directed the CBI to submit Preliminary report within four weeks and final report within two months from 16.07.2003. 12. In the next order dated 21.08.2003, M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2003) 8 SCC 711, this Court, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pective inquiry officers for holding inquiry, within a period of seven days from today; (e) it would be open to the State Government if called for to pass order for suspension of the delinquent officers in accordance with the rules; (f) for the officers and the persons involved in the matter, CBI is directed to lodge an FIR and make further investigation in accordance with law; (g) CBI shall take appropriate steps for holding investigation against the Chief Minister Ms Mayawati and Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former Minister for Environment, U.P. and other officers involved; (h) the Income Tax Department is also directed to cooperate in further investigation which is required to be carried out by CBI; (i) CBI would take into consideration all the relevant Acts i.e. Indian Penal Code/Prevention of Corruption Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc.; (j) CBI to submit a self-contained note to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh as well as to the Cabinet Secretary, Union Government and to the Ministry concerned dealing with NPCC. 14. A perusal of the orders prior to the order dated 18.09.2003 and several directions in the order dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. 70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various directions, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG very much pressed into service the direction in para 13(g) of the order dated 18.09.2003. The said direction reads as under: (g) CBI shall take appropriate steps for holding investigation against the Chief Minister Ms Mayawati and Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former Minister for Environment, U.P. and other officers involved; According to Mr. Mohan Parasaran, liberty was granted by this Court to proceed against the Petitioner. He also relied on para 9 of the order dated 25.10.2004 - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 137, which reads as under: Re: FIR RC 0062003A0019 9. The further investigation report filed by CBI in this connection while indicating large-scale irregularities does not in fact show any link between such irregularities and the Taj Corridor matter which is the subject-matter of reference before the Special Bench. CBI therefore is at liberty to proceed with and take action on the basis of their investigation in respect of this FIR. In the event any link is disclosed in the course of such investigation between facts as found and the Taj Corridor Project, CBI will bring the same to the notice of this Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt any link is disclosed in the course of such investigation between the Taj Corridor Project and the assets, CBI is free to bring it to the notice of this Court. The fact remains that the investigation report filed by the CBI before this Court which was considered on 25.10.2004 shows that large-scale irregularities does not show any link between such irregularities and the Taj Corridor matter. The said finding/conclusion by this Court was based on the investigation report of the CBI. In view of the same, we are satisfied that CBI cannot be permitted to take the view that two cases, namely, Taj Corridor and Disproportionate Assets case are same and the investigation was done in both the cases as per the directions of this Court. After reading the entire orders dated 18.09.2003 and 25.10.2004, the stand of the CBI is to be rejected as unacceptable. 19. It is also brought to our notice that merely because various orders of this Court including the order dated 18.09.2003 has been communicated to various authorities in terms of the provisions of the rules of this Court, the CBI is not justified in putting the Assistant Registrar of this Court as informant/complainant. Further as right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of this Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (supra) wherein this Court observed that only when this Court after considering material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for investigation by the CBI for the alleged offence, an order directing inquiry by the CBI could be passed and that too after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected person. We are satisfied that there was no such finding or satisfaction recorded by this Court in the matter of disproportionate assets of the Petitioner on the basis of the status report dated 11.09.2003 and, in fact, the Petitioner was not a party before this Court in the case in question. From the perusal of those orders, we are also satisfied that there could not have been any material before this Court about the disproportionate assets case of the Petitioner beyond the Taj Corridor Project case and there was no such question or issue about disproportionate assets of the Petitioner. In view of the same, giving any direction to lodge FIR relating to disproportionate assets case did not arise. 22. We finally conclude that anything beyond the Taj Corrid....