MR. FAZALUR REHMAN AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 14-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS, M. SRINIVASAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MR. FAZALUR REHMAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 14, 1998 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32: 
Writ-Directions given by Supreme Court-Communal riots-Enquiry 
Commission appointed by State Government-Report of Enquiry Commission- C 
Directions given by Supreme Court to file details of action taken-Casual 
approach shown by State Government-Direction by Supreme Court to file 
summary of Enquiry Commission's Report and the action taken report 
alongwith an affidavit by home Secretary of State Government-Further 
lapse or failure to do the needfal would require not only adverse comments D 
but may also require personal presence of Home Secretary to explain the 
lapses. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) Nos. 11742-44 
of 1984. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Krishan Mahajan, Ms .. MushrafChoudhary, P.H. Parekh, for the Petitioner. 
A.B. Rohtagi, Karnlendra Misra and R.B. Misra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by : 
Through these writ petitions filed in 1984, attention of this Court was 
drawn to various aspects arising out of the communal riots which took place 
in Meerut between 6.9.1982 and 20.10.1982. There was loss of life and property. 
E 
F 
It appears that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh appointed an Enquiry Commission, G 
headed by Justice C.D. Parekh of the Allahabad High Court on 21.1.1983. We 
are informed that the Report was submitted by Justice Parekh Commission on 
15.11.1988. Rule Nisi was issued by this court on 17.4.1984. 14 years have 
gone by and the case remains still at the preliminary stages. After the issuance 
of rule-nisi, an affidavit was filed by Shri Vijay Sharma, District Magistrate. H 
319 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A On 24.1.1996, the following order came to be made by this court: 
B 
c 
D 
"Learned counsel for the respondent-State of U.P. submits that the 
report of the Enquiry Commission headed by Justice C.D. Parekh of 
the Allahabad High Court has been submitted and according to the 
additional counter-affidavit to the additional counter-affidavit (at pages 
90A-92 of the paper-book) of Shri Vijay Sharma, District Magistrate, 
that report has been acted upon. It does appear to us that at this 
stage the scope of the writ petition may have to be confined to this 
extent only. 
We consider it appropriate to peruse the report of Justice C.D. Parekh 
in the light of the additional affidavit of the District Magistrate. The 
report and the other material documents be produced before us on the 
next date and in the meantime an affidavit containing the details of the 
entire action taken by the Government pursuant to that report be also 
filed. 
List the matter on 12.3.1996." 
Inspite of the clear directions given to the State of U .P. to file an 
affidavit of a responsible officer containing the details of the entire action 
E taken by the Government pursuant to that Report, the needful was not done. 
On 11. 7 .1996, an additional affidavit was filed by Shri Deepak Singhal, District 
Magistrate, Meerut. Para 3(b) of the affidavit reads thus : 
"It is respectfully stated that the details containing the entire actions 
taken by the State Government in relation to the respect of the Justice 
F 
C.D. Parekh, Commission of Enquiry shall be presented before this 
Hon'ble Court by a separate affidavit by Government of U.P." 
The affidavit containing the details of the action taken by the State 
Government in relation to the action to be taken on Justice C.D. Parekh 
G Commission of the Enquiry were, however, not filed. The case was adjourned 
from time to time when on 12.2.1998, the State was once again directed by this 
court to file an affidavit. The order dated 12.2.1998 reads thus: 
"Let a responsible officer or the State of the Uttar Pradesh file an 
affidavit as to the follow up action initiated on the basis of the Justice 
H 
Parekh's report and that what is the latest position in respect thereto. 
::.: 
• 
FAZALURREHMANv. STATE 
321 
List in the first half of April, 1998." 
No affidavit was filed even after this order and on 21.7.1998, the court 
made the following order: 
A 
"As already conceded by the State of Uttar Pradesh Vide order dated 
24th January, 1996, let an affidavit containing the details of the entire B 
action taken by the Government pursuant to the report of Justice C.D . 
Parekh be filed so that it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.