LexVISHWANATH CHATURVEDI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A VISHW ANA TI! CHA lURVEDI v. I _. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MARCH I, 2007 B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] Public Interest Litigation: c Public fanctionaries and their relatives-Allegations of acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of their income and filing false returns- Writ petition filed as public interest litigation praying for direction to Union of fndia to take appropriate action under Prevention of Corruption Act- Maintainability of-Held, though PIL is not maintainable to inquire into returns of a tax payer, except in special circumstances, but when scams take D place allegatians of disproportionate assets are required to be looked into- Ultimate test is whether allegations have any substance-An inquiry should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent raises an allegation of commission of offence-Since facts are disputed, prayer as set out in the writ petition cannot be allowed-Therefore, prayer is moulded and ,Jr, CBI is directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the a/legations and '· E submit a report to Union of India, which would take appropriate action thereupon-·Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Administrative Law. The pctitiom!r filed the present writ petition under Article 32 of the F Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation arraying Union of India as respondent no. 1 and the sitting Chief Minister of the State of U.P., his two sons and one daughter-in-law as respondent nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 2, Chief Minister of the State, by misusing his power and .,. ' ' authority acquire<ll properties worth crores of rupees. He prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to take appropriate action to prosecute G respondent nos. 2 to 5 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of thl'ir income by misusing their power and authority. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 denied the allegation and also filed documents including income-tax returns in support of their stand. H 448 VISHW ANA TH CHA TURVEDI v. U.0.1. 449 .. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court A >- i HELD: 1. It is true that PIL is not maintainable to probe or enquire into the returns of another taxpayer except in special circumstances. However, when scams take place, allegation of disproportionate assets are required to be looked into. The point to be noted is that the source of the funds plays a B crucial role in investigations in matters involving misappropriation of public funds. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioner's interest. It is wrong in law for the -~ Court to judge the petitioner's interest without looking into the subject matter of his complaint and ifthe petitioner shows failure of public duty, the Court would be in error in dismissing the PIL. The ultimate test, therefore, is c whether the allegations have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent of a person with political differences raises an allegation of commission of offence. !Paras 37, 39, 40] MC. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., (2003] 8 SCC 696, relied on. D Raj iv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (Vlll) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 12006] 6 sec 613, held inapplicable. -,.. K.L. Dorji v. C.B.I., (1994] 3 SCR 201; Prakash Singh Badal v. State of -~ Punjab, 12007] 1 SCC 1, cited. I Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1998] I sec 226; E 'Common Cause, A Registered Society v, Union of India & Ors. (1999] 6 SCC 667 and Inland Revenue Commissioners v. National Federation of Self employed and Small Business Ltd, (1982) Appeal Cases 617, referred to. 2.1. The records placed before this Court and the allegations made by F the petitioner encountered by the respective respondents are related to the -.( properties purchased by the contesting respondents stated to be disproportionate to their known source of income. Voluminous documents by way of several sale deeds, Income-tax Returns, Income-tax Assessment Orders, Wealth Tax Returns and several photographs have been filed. This apart, G several charts in regard to the properties purchased by the respondents have also been filed. The contesting respondents have also filed a separate chart. -j I. [1997] 6 Supp. SCR 595. 2.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.