Naresh Dixit vs State of U.P. and Others

Amitava Lala, A.C.J

This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, being the President of Anchalik Patrakar Association, with the following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to transfer the Investigation of Case Crime No. 1/07 u/s 120B, read with 420/467/468/471/201 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), P.C. Act, 1988 and Case Crime No. 2/07 u/s 120B, read with 409/420/467/468/471, IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), P.C. Act, 1988, P.S. - S.I.T., U.P., Lucknow to the Respondent No. 24 for fair investigation within stipulated period.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 24 to enquire the entire matter of transferring the plot No. A-6 and A-3, Industrial Area, Kursi Road, Barabanki by M/s. Easter Chemicals Ltd. to Society for Advancement in Education with the help of officers of the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation and also changing the land use and causing a loss of rupees more than twenty crores of Government Revenue.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 not to post tainted officers on the responsible posts in the interest of justice.

(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(v) Allow the petition with cost.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, as made by the Petitioner, we have called upon the learned Chief Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter called the ''UPSIDC'') to give their reply with regard to the specific prayers, as made herein above. In turn, the learned Chief Standing Counsel has contended before this Court that so far as the first prayer is concerned, a Special Investigation Team was constituted which following the procedure similar to the Central Bureau of Investigation, has completed the investigation and submitted its report to the higher authority on 22nd March, 2010, which will in turn send it to the State for taking appropriate decision for filing a report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter. At this juncture, there is no necessity to shift the investigation to another authority unnecessarily. If anybody has any grievance with regard to the fairness of the investigation, that will come after getting the report and taking steps by the authority concerned in connection thereto. However, since the second prayer of the writ petition relates to the UPSIDC about the change of the land use, the learned Counsel appearing for the UPSIDC has produced before us a note under the signature of the Regiomil Manager, UPSIDC. The entire note is quoted hereunder:

UP State Industrial Development Authority was constituted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh through notification No. 1418/77-4-2001-267Bha/97 T.C.-l Lucknow dated 05.09.2001 under Uttar Pradesh State Government Authority Act, 1976 under the Chairmanship of Industrial Development Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Area (Preparation and Finalisation of Plans) Regulations, 2004 was framed in exercise of power u/s 19 read with Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh State Development Authority Act, 1976 by the UP State Industrial Development Authority.

UP State Industrial Development Area Land Development Regulations, 2004 was framed in exercise of power u/s 19 read with Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh State Development Authority Act, 1976 by the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority.

U.P. State Industrial Development Area Building Regulations, 2004 in exercise of power u/s 19 read with Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh State Development Authority Act, 1976 by the UP State Industrial Development Authority.

The Board of Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur in its 228th meeting decided that allotment of land for private Engineering/Medical/Professional College (First Venture only) shall also be made in industrial area.

Plot No. A-3 (Undeveloped), Industrial Area, Kursi Road, Barabanki.

Allotted to M/s. Easter India Chemical Ltd. on 4.7.1997 for setting up Industrial unit for manufacture of acetic acid. Activity was changed as requested by M/s. Easter India Chemicals Ltd., from industrial to institutional as Industrial unit became sick after running and was closed on permanently, after approval by the Board of U.P. State Industrial Development Authority in its 9th meeting held on 9.6.2006 under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 as well as Regulations framed therein. Subsequently, M/s. Easter India Chemical Ltd. requested for transfer of the plot in favour of M/s. Society for Advancement in Education for setting up Educational Institution (Engineering & Management Institute) in accordance with decision of 228th Board meeting of Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur and transfer policy which was approved on 13.11.2006 by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur on payment of transfer levy etc. on the prescribed rate. The building plan was approved in accordance with U.P. State Industrial Development Area Building Regulations, 2004, approved by the 7th Board meeting of U.P. State Industrial Development Authority. Asia School for Engineering & Management of M/s. Society for Advancement in Education is presently running.

Plot No. A-6 (Undeveloped), Industrial Area, Kursi Road, Barabanki.

Allotted to M/s. Society for Advancement in Education on 17.8.2006 by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur for setting up Institutional Unit, permissible under U.P. State Industrial Development Area (Preparation & Finalisation of Plans) Regulations, 2004 and U.P. State Industrial Development Area Land Development Regulations, 2004, framed in exercise of powers u/s 19 read with Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 by the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority and decision of 228th Board meeting of Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur, of M/s. Society for Advancement in Education on payment of prescribed rate.

Sd/- Regional Manager Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow

So far as the change of land use is concerned, we have called upon the learned Counsel for the UPSIDC to show the minute as to whether any decision for change of land use has been taken or not. To that, our attention has been drawn to the note, quoted above, and the minutes of the meeting held on 09.06.2006, from which it is seen that the decision for change of the land use was taken by the year 2006 and the same has been challenged in the year 2010 without any pleading for challenging the same at such a belated stage. Therefore, we do not find any reason to further investigate or monitor the matter, as proposed by the Petitioner. However, we accept the submission of the Petitioner to the extent that there should be a period to be fixed by this Court for consideration of the report and completion of further course of action as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

So far as the prayer No. 3 regarding placement of the tainted officers is concerned, the same will be governed by the judgment and order dated 24th February, 2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. 1480 of 2010 (Deepak Gidwani v. State of UP. and Ors.), in which the judgment of three Judges'' Bench of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 6 SCC 614 , [Rajiv Ranjan Singh ''Lalan'' (VIII) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.], has been considered. Though, the Petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in Center for Public Interest Litigation and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the appointment on the post of Chief Secretary of a State, observed that such type of appointment on sensitive post should not be given to a tainted person because it is a question of transfer, unlike the present one, and that too when the charge sheet was filed by the Criminal Bureau of Investigation. As such, this distinguishable feature cannot be ignored.

With the above observations and order, we dispose of this writ petition, however, without imposing any cost.

Let the note produced under the signature of Regional Manager of the UPSIDC, as quoted herein above, as also the copy of the extract of the minutes of the meeting dated 9.6.2006, be kept with the record.

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.

I agree.