JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA versus STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 26-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 360 
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA 
v. 
STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 9442 of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 26, 20 I 6 
(T.S.THAKUR, CJI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
Lokayuktas: 
U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 - s.12(3) -
Allegations against respondents-public servants, that they had 
purchased assets through income earned from unknown sources -
Lokayukta recommended investigation through investigating 
agencies - Appellant filed writ petition and pleaded for 
implementation of the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta -
Writ Petition dismissed - On appeal, held: Law enforcement agencies 
have moved into action and have collected information and material 
including the representations and affidavits received in course of 
the said investigation/enquiry - On request of the law enforcing 
agencies, more time granted to them to complete investigation/ 
enquiries in relation to the acts of commission and omission of 
respondents-public servants - Constitution of India - Art. 136 -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(1)(e) rlw. s.13(2) -
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.173(2). 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The relief in the writ petition filed before High 
Court was limited to directing the Competent Authority to act_ 
upon the recommendations made by the Lokayukta. That relief 
has worked out in view of the direction issued by the Competent 
Authority to investigate/enquire into the factual matrix noticed 
in Lokayukta's report. Further, the law enforcement agencies 
have moved into action and have collected information and 
material including with reference to the representations and 
affidavits received in the course of the said investigation/enquiry. 
On the request of the law enforcement agencies, some more time 
given to them to complete the investigation/enquiries in relation 
360 
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
to the acts of commission and omission of respondent nos.5 and 
6 or any other person(s) privy thereto. (ParalS) [373-D-E) 
2.In the instant case, considering the fact that the law 
enforcement agencies are on their job for quite sometime, it is 
hoped that they would complete the investigation/enquiry at the 
earliest and not later than six months from today and take the 
same to its logical end in accordance with law. [Para 16) (373-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9442 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2012 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Misc. Bench 
No. 5744 of2012. 
M. C. Dhingra, Ms. Gauri Neo Rampa!, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Rakesh Kr. Khanna, Sr. Adv., P. K. Mullick, 
Ritesh Kumar, Rajat Nair, Manoj Singh, Rajat M., B. K. Prasad, Mukesh 
Kumar Maroria, Rajeev Singh, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Abhishek Kumar 
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal challenges the decision of the Division Bench of 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dated l 61h July, 
2012 in Writ Petition No.5744 of2012. 
3. The appellant had filed writ petition under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation praying for 
implementation of the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta Uttar 
Pradesh, dated 22°d February, 2012. i::ollowing reliefs were prayed in 
the said writ petition: 
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon 'ble Court 
may kindly be pleased, in the interest of justice, to 
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, 
directing the Opposite Parties Nos. I, 2 and 3 to implement 
the recommendations/report of the Opposite Parties No.4 by 
getting the issue enquired by the opposite party Nos. 7 and 8. 
iI) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus 
361 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
362 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
directing the Opposite Parties No. 7 and 8 to carry out an 
enquiry into the misdeeds of the Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 
6, in terms of the recommendation of the Opposite Party No.4. 
iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as may be deem fit 
and proper by this Hon'ble Court for givingjust, proper and 
effective relief to the petitioner. 
iv) Award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner. 
4. The Lokayukta had submitted the said report under the 
P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.