RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 21-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJJV RAN JAN SINGH 'LALAN' AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21. 2006. 
B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN. DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA,JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 32 and 235-Writ of mandamus-Case under provisions of 
C Prevention of Corruption Act for acquiring disproportionate assets pending 
against two former Chief Ministers-Cases arising out of Fodder Scam pending 
before Special Judge-Revenue not filing appeals in income tax cases decided 
by IT AT in favour of the two Chief Ministers-Writ petition as public interest 
litigation by two MPs alleging the said two former Chief Ministers using 
D their power and influence in transfer of Member. !TAT earlier hearing their 
appeals-Transfer of Prosecutor in Prevention of Corruption Act case-
Transfer of Special Judge and appointment of another officer in his place-
Prayers for direction to Revenue to file appeals against decision of ITAT-
Direction to High Court to re-consider appointment of Special Judge-To re-
appoint the same prosecutor-Trial pending before Special Judge to be 
E monitored by Supreme Court and to cancel bail of the two former Chief 
Ministers-Held, Per Majority (Kapadia, J dissenting), the prayers sought 
for in the writ petitions cannot be allowed and the writ petitions being 
without merits are liable to be dismissed-Public Interest Litigation-
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986-ss. 13(/)(e) and 13(2)-fncome Tax 
F Act-s.260-A. 
A large scale defalcation of public funds of crores of rupees in the 
Department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Bihar came to light during 
the tenure or respondent No. 5 as Chief Minister of Bihar. The petitioners, 
who were Members of the Parliament, filed a writ petition in the Patna High 
G Court. Another writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court. Consequently, 
several cases were registered by the police and the investigation was 
entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Supreme Court directed 
that the investigation would be monitored by a Division Bench of the Patna 
High Court. The State Government was asked to assign adequate number of 
H 
742 
... 
RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U.O.l. 
743 
Special Judges to deal with the cases expeditiously. Later a case under the A 
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against 
respondent No. 5, on the allegations that he, as Chief Minister of Bihar, had 
acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Respondent 
No. 4, the wife of respondent No. 5, who also became Chief Minister of Bihar 
later, was also charge-sheeted in the said case for abetment u/s 109 IPC read 
with ss.13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was B 
numbered as Special Case No. 5/1998 and was pending in the Court of Special 
Judge, Patna. 
The petitioners filed the present writ petitions as public interest 
litigation alleging that certain income tax appeals of respondent nos. 4 and 5 C 
were pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; the Member who was 
hearing the appeals was sent on deputation; the Bench comprising new 
Member decided the case in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the Revenue 
did not file any further appeal in those matters; that when the Special Case 
no.5/1998 pending before the Special Judge was at the final stage of hearing, 
the Prosecutor was changed and another person who had no experience of D 
conducting prosecution was appointed; that the Special Judge, CBI who was 
hearing the fodder scam matters, was transferred and another Special Judge 
was nominated, who was having a poor record and was not senior to be 
appointed as a Special Judge. It was submitted that respondents no. 4 and 5 
still wield influence and power and, therefore, the Supreme Court should E 
monitor the trial pending before the Special Judge, Patna; and the bail granted 
to them should be cancelled. 
It was contended for respondent nos. 4 and 5 that filing of the writ 
prtitions was a politically motivated move to malign them~ It was submitted 
that both the petitioners were not in any way connected with case No, 5/1998 p 
filed against respondent nos. 4 and 5; it was a criminal litigation exclusively 
between respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the State, and in a case of this nature, 
nobody else got any right to interfere specially by way of public interest 
litigation. It was a!so submitted that the trial could not be conducted because 
of the present public interest litigation. 
G 
Dis

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