# Naseemuddin Siddiqui and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1596
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-11-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20236 of 2012
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, A.C.J. Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naseemuddin-siddiqui-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42374
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Mr. S.P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Advocate
General,
Mr. Yashwant Varma, Chief Standing
Counsel,&
Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Standing Counsel.

U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act
1975-Section-14 (3)-direction for further
Investigation-whether amount to review
by
Lokayukta-argument
that
once
investigation concluded with innocence
of
petitioner-in
absence
of
specific
provisions
for
review-further
investigation-without
jurisdiction-heldno embargo on procedural review.

Held: Para-11

Having considered the rival contentions
of the parties, in totality we find that the
intention of the Lokayukta was to send
the matter to the competent authority
for
the
purpose
of
getting
recommendation for investigation by an
appropriate agency of the State or the
Central
Government
with
the
concurrence of the Government as per
Section 14(3)(i) of the Act, to which
there is no bar. It may be accepted by
the competent authority or it may be
rejected. However, it is true to say that
the
communication
will
not
be
understood by the wrong recital but by
the contents of the letter when no
investigation has been made by any
agency as yet in the matter.

Case Law discussed:
AIR1970 SC 1273; 1986 (4) SCC 326; 1987 (4)
SCC 525; 1994 (5) SCC 479; 2002 (9) SCC
509; 2004 (10) SCC 201; 1964 (6) SCR 857;
1976 (4) SCC 709; 1977 (2) SCC 616; 1983 (2)
SCC 422; AIR 1997 SC 3892; 1980 (Supp) SCC
420; 1996 (5) SCC 550; 1999 (4) SCC 396;
2005 (13) SCC 777; 2006 (3) SCC 699

## Text

1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
The writ petition is dismissed subject to
observations as made above and liberty as
provided for. The parties shall bear their
own cost.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20236 of 2012

Naseemuddin Siddiqui and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sr. Advocate,
Sri Ashutosh Gupta
Sri Syed Mohammad Fazal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. S.P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Advocate
General,
Mr. Yashwant Varma, Chief Standing
Counsel,&
Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Standing Counsel.

U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act
1975-Section-14 (3)-direction for further
Investigation-whether amount to review
by
Lokayukta-argument
that
once
investigation concluded with innocence
of
petitioner-in
absence
of
specific
provisions
for
review-further
investigation-without
jurisdiction-heldno embargo on procedural review.

Held: Para-11

Having considered the rival contentions
of the parties, in totality we find that the
intention of the Lokayukta was to send
the matter to the competent authority
for
the
purpose
of
getting
recommendation for investigation by an
appropriate agency of the State or the
Central
Government
with
the
concurrence of the Government as per
Section 14(3)(i) of the Act, to which
there is no bar. It may be accepted by
the competent authority or it may be
rejected. However, it is true to say that
the
communication
will
not
be
understood by the wrong recital but by
the contents of the letter when no
investigation has been made by any
agency as yet in the matter.

Case Law discussed:
AIR1970 SC 1273; 1986 (4) SCC 326; 1987 (4)
SCC 525; 1994 (5) SCC 479; 2002 (9) SCC
509; 2004 (10) SCC 201; 1964 (6) SCR 857;
1976 (4) SCC 709; 1977 (2) SCC 616; 1983 (2)
SCC 422; AIR 1997 SC 3892; 1980 (Supp) SCC
420; 1996 (5) SCC 550; 1999 (4) SCC 396;
2005 (13) SCC 777; 2006 (3) SCC 699

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala,
A.C.J.)

Amitava Lala, ACJ.-- This writ
petition has been filed by the petitioners
basically to obtain an order of the Court
quashing the recommendation dated 15th
March, 2012 made by the Lokayukta, Uttar
Pradesh to the Chief Minister of the Uttar
Pradesh to pass an appropriate order in
connection with the investigation through an
appropriate agency. Other incidental prayers
have also been made in connection thereto.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are
that the petitioner no. 1 is an Ex-Cabinet
Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh,
whereas presently both the petitioners i.e.
petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, who is
wife of petitioner no. 1, are said to be
Members of the Legislative Council of the
State. A complaint was filed before the
Lokayukta levelling certain allegations
against thse petitioners. Pursuant to the
3 All] Naseemuddin Siddiqui and another V. State of U.P. and others
1597
notice issued by the Lokayukta, the
petitioners filed their reply to such
complaint. On 22nd February, 2012 the
Lokayukta made recommendation to the
Chief Minister, being competent authority,
recommending for investigation by any
Central Investigating Agency, like Central
Bureau of Investigation or Enforcement
Directorate, on the points referred to in
such recommendation and to take further
action
according
to
the
investigation/enquiry report. The Cabinet
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
on behalf of the competent authority, vide
its report/letter dated 27th February, 2012
turned down the request of the Lokayukta
and informed the decision of the competent
authority to close the
matter. The
Lokayukta again on 15th March, 2012
made
the
recommendation
to
the
competent authority to review its earlier
decision taken on the recommendation
dated 22nd February, 2012 with regard to
maintainability of the complaint and
jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Such
recommendation dated 15th March, 2012
of the Lokayukta is under challenge in this
writ petition.

3. Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has
contended before us that as per Section 12
of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta & UpLokayuktas Act, 1975 (hereinafter in short
called as the "Act") a report is to be filed
by the Lokayukta to the competent
authority to examine the same, for his
satisfaction, to the extent whether the
proceedings will be closed or will be
proceeded further and he may also make a
special report to the Governor, who, on
receipt of such special report, shall cause a
copy thereof together with explanatory
memorandum to be laid before each House
of the State Legislature. Neither the
Lokayukta is empowered to recommend
for investigation by any agency nor he has
any power to send the matter to the
competent authority for review of such
investigation when in the earlier occasion
the competent authority has closed the
investigation. After sending the report, the
Lokayukta
becomes
functus
officio.
Review is a creature of the statute. No
review can be made beyond the provisions
of the Act. In support of his submissions as
regards power of review, Mr. Shashi
Nandan has relied upon the judgements
reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273 (Patel
Narshi
Thakershi
and
others
Vs.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji), 1986
(4) SCC 326 (A.K. Roy and another Vs.
State of Punjab and others), 1987 (4)
SCC 525 [Dr (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta Vs.
Management
of
Hindu
Kanya
Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and
others] and 1994 (5) SCC 479 (All
Kerala
Private
College
Teachers'
Association Vs. Nair Service Society and
others).

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Gupta,
learned Advocate General, duly assisted by
Mr. Yashwant Varma, learned Chief
Standing Counsel and Mr. Ramanand
Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, has
contended before this Court that the
petitioner has proceeded on a wrong
premise. There is a basic difference in
making report before investigation and
after investigation. Under Section 12 of the
Act, the report is to be placed by the
Lokayukta before the competent authority
only after investigation and not before
investigation. Admittedly, in this case no
investigation has been made as yet,
therefore, the Lokayukta thought it fit to
get
permission
from
the
competent
authority for investigation. Such power is
1598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
available to the Lokayukta under Section
14(3) of the Act, which speaks as follows:

"14(3). Without prejudice to the
provisions
of
sub-section
(1),
the
Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may for
the purpose of conducting investigation
under this Act utilise the services of--

(i) any officer or investigation agency
of the State or Central Government with
the concurrence of that Government,

(ii) any other person or agency."

5. Therefore, sub-section (3) of
Section 14 of the Act is applicable in the
case of the petitioners to recommend the
matter to the competent authority for the
purpose of investigation. According to Mr.
Gupta, the Act is not happily drafted,
otherwise
there
is
no
occasion
to
incorporate sub-section (3) under Section
14 of the Act and place it after Section 12,
which speaks about the stage after the
investigation. He further said that wrong
recital
in
the
order
impugned/recommendation
being
proceeding under Section 12(3) of the Act
does not wash out the contents and spirit of
the
communication,
by
which
the
recommendation has been made. In other
words, the Court will proceed on the basis
of the contents and not on the basis of the
heading or recital alone. In support of his
submissions, Mr. Gupta has relied upon the
judgement of the Supreme Court reported
in 2002 (9) SCC 509 [Vikram Singh
Junior
High
School
Vs.
District
Magistrate (Fin. & Rev.) and others],
wherein it has been held that merely
quoting wrong provision of the statute for
exercising power would not invalidate the
order passed by the authority if it is shown
that such order could be passed under other
provisions of the statute.

6. We have also gone through the
judgement reported in 2004 (10) SCC 201
(State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries
Ltd. and others) and found that it has
been held by the Supreme Court as under:

"57. ..... A doubtful expression
occurring in a judgment, apparently by
mistake or inadvertence, ought to be read
by assuming that the court had intended to
say only that which is correct according to
the settled position of law, and the
apparent error should be ignored, far from
making any capital out of it, giving way to
the correct expression which ought to be
implied or necessarily read in the
contest,.... .

***

 ***

***

71. ... A statement caused by an
apparent typographical or inadvertent error
in a judgment of the Court should not be
misunderstood as declaration of such law
by the court...."
(emphasis supplied)

7. The Supreme Court had occasion
to consider this issue in the judgement
reported
in
1964
(6)
SCR
857
(Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. State of
M.P.), wherein there was a wrong
reference in the order issued by the
Government. The Supreme Court observed
as follows:

"3. ........ It is well settled that merely
a wrong reference to the power under
which certain actions are taken by
Government would not per se vitiate the
actions done if they can be justified under
some other power under which the
3 All] Naseemuddin Siddiqui and another V. State of U.P. and others
1599
Government could lawfully do these acts.
It is quite clear that the Government had
the power under Section 5 (l) and (3) of
Act 1 of 1948 to amend to Tax Rules, for
that was a law in force in one of the
merged States. The only mistake that the
Government made was that in the opening
part of the notification Section 5 of the Act
was not referred to and the notification did
not specify that the Government was
making a regulation under Act 1 of 1948.
But that in our opinion would make no
difference
to
the
validity
of
the
amendments, if the amendments could be
validly made under Section 5 of Act 1 of
1948.
It
is
not
disputed
that the
amendments could be validly made under
Section 5 of the Act 1 of 1948. We are
therefore of opinion that the mere mistake
in the opening part of the notification in
reciting the wrong source of power does
not affect the validity of the amendments
made."

8. Similar view has also been taken
in the judgements reported in 1976 (4)
SCC 709 [Mayongbam Radhamohan
Singh Vs. The Chief Commissioner
(Administrator), Manipur and others],
1977 (2) SCC 616 (The Vice-Chancellor,
Jammu University, and another Vs.
Dushinant Kumar Rampal) and 1983 (2)
SCC 422 (Municipal Corporation Of the
City of Ahmedabad Vs. Ben Hiraben
Manilal).

9. So far as part of review is
concerned, Mr. Gupta has contended that
there is no difference between the 'review'
and 'reconsideration' as per the judgement
reported in AIR 1997 SC 3892 (Reliance
Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai
Patel and others). It is a case of
reconsideration. He further submitted that
the word "review" includes "procedural
review" and "review on merit". In case of
review on merit, the Court will have to
proceed if the relevant Act provides for the
scope of review. But the case of procedural
review is inbuilt and there is no embargo in
reviewing any issue related to procedure.
Here, the case is strictly covered by the
scope of procedural review to the effect
whether the Lokayukta can send the matter
to
the
competent
authority
for
reconsideration
regarding
investigation
after the same has been declined by the
competent authority in the earlier occasion.
In respect of procedural review, he has
cited various judgements reported in 1980
(Supp) SCC 420 (Grindlays Bank Ltd.
Vs. Central Government Industrial
Tribunal and others), 1996 (5) SCC 550
[Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India)
Pvt. Ltd.], 1999 (4) SCC 396 (Budhia
Swain and others Vs. Gopinath Deb and
others), 2005 (13) SCC 777 (Kapra
Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs. Birla Cotton
Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and
another) and 2006 (3) SCC 699 [Jet Ply
Wood
(P)
Ltd.
and
another
Vs.
Madhukar Nowlakha and others].

10. In the midst of hearing, it was
brought to our notice by the learned
Advocate General that there is no signature
of the competent authority on the
recommendation made to it in the earlier
occasion, meaning thereby the Chief
Minister, who happens to be the competent
authority as per Section 2(c)(i) of the Act,
had not examined and considered the
report of the Lokayukta, therefore, the
Court had no other option but to adjourn
the matter and direct the State to produce
the record before the Court. Thereafter, the
record was produced, from which it
appears that all the papers pertaining to the
report have been considered by the Cabinet
Secretary. There was no separate order of
1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
the Chief Minister, her signature was
found
only
on
the
note-sheet
and
ultimately in the last page of note-sheet
signature of the then Chief Minister, being
competent authority, is there as if she, only
as a matter of formality, has put her
signature and sent the file which, according
to us, is not the intention of the Act. The
competent authority has to apply her/his
mind before directing or recommending
for investigation or closing the proceeding,
particularly when the charges are under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against
a Cabinet Minister in discharging duties of
office.

11. Having considered the rival
contentions of the parties, in totality we
find that the intention of the Lokayukta
was to send the matter to the competent
authority for the purpose of getting
recommendation for investigation by an
appropriate agency of the State or the
Central Government with the concurrence
of the Government as per Section 14(3)(i)
of the Act, to which there is no bar. It may
be accepted by the competent authority or
it may be rejected. However, it is true to
say that the communication will not be
understood by the wrong recital but by the
contents of the letter when no investigation
has been made by any agency as yet in the
matter. Thus, we are of the view that the
writ petition is premature in nature and, as
such, it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

12. However, no order is passed as to
costs.

13. The original record, which was
produced before the Court by Mr.
Yashwant Varma, learned Chief Standing
Counsel, and which was directed to be kept
under the sealed cover, is directed to be
returned to Mr. Yashwant Varma.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 22757
of 2008

Collectorate Bar Association, Etah

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sr. Advocate,
Sri S.P.S. Rathore.
Sri Dhiraj Srivastava
Sri S.P.S. Chauhan
Sri Satendra Pal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.M. Srivastava
Sri Neeraj Srivastava
Sri V.M. Srivastava
Sri Zafer Nayyer
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Public
Interest Litigation-by notification dated
15.04.2008-new district with name of
'Sri Kashi Ram Nagar' by carving out
tehsil Kasganj and patiyali created-but
till date no budget and infrastructure
provided-relying upon judgment of Apex
Court in Ram Milan Shukla case-relief for
quashing the notification and to proceed
further-claimed-held-not
proper
to
quash notification but direction issued to
complete the infrastructure and use
budgetary sanction within next financial
year
31.03.2014-in
case
of
failure
notification itself automatically stand
quashed.