1

AFR

RESERVED

Writ Petition No. 2599 (M/B) of 2014

Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu

Vs

State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearance:

For the petitioner: Mr. Digvijai Singh, Advocate

For the respondents:

Mr. Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Shishir Jain, Advocate, for U.P.

Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.

Mr. Abhay Veer Singh, AGA, for the State

Hon'ble Dilip B Bhosale, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J

Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J

(Per Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)

A Division Bench of this Court, finding it difficult to agree and

concur with the observations made in the order dated 01.04.2014 of

another Division Bench, vide its order dated 16.04.2014, requested the

Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to hear and decide the writ

petition. The Chief Justice, vide order dated 17.04.2014 constituted a

three-Judge Bench presided over by Sunil Ambwani, J.

2.The Full Bench, vide its order dated 28.04.2014, formulated the

following question on the request and with the assistance of learned

counsel appearing for the parties:

“Whether a Judge of Hon'ble High Court sitting

alone or Judges sitting in a Division Bench hearing

any matter in his/their determination assigned by

–eutralkKitationk–oqk6kF7-H”)&K6…%z”F8/-'6Ex

2

Hon'ble the Chief Justice, can overstep into the

determination of another Bench, if any issue or

question arises in the matter including a question in

public interest, which is not connected to the matter

before him/them, and which in his/their opinion is

necessary to be decided, and further in such case

where in his/their discretion it is necessary to decide

such question, what should be the procedure to be

adopted.”

3.It appears from the order dated 28.04.2014, that the Full Bench also

invited members of the Bar who were interested to assist the Full Bench.

Accordingly, the Oudh Bar Association entered its appearance through its

President and sought time to assist the Court. One Shri Ashok Pande,

Advocate, also made an application, supported by his affidavit, for

intervention. Insofar as the oral request for intervention of the Oudh Bar

Association is concerned, it was allowed. However, it was clarified that

the intervention application of Shri Ashok Pande was not being

considered then. The Full Bench also requested Shri Ashok Pande to

consider the deletion of paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit. Thus, the

matter is now before this Full Bench.

4.It would be relevant and necessary to note the background facts that

occasioned the reference to a Larger Bench. When the writ petition (Writ

Petition No. 2599 of 2014) was placed before the Division Bench

presided over by Sunil Ambwani, J., separate applications, bearing C.M.

Application Nos. 38165 of 2014 and 38166 of 2014 filed by the Uttar

Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited (for short, 'UPRNN') were also

placed before the Bench, for expunging the remarks/observations made in

the order dated 01.04.2014 passed in the writ petition and for recalling the

3

said order, and so also for seeking permission to intervene in the writ

petition. An application, filed by the State of U.P., supported by the

affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Principal Secretary, Department of

Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, with

similar prayers was also placed before the Court. The Division Bench,

after having gone through the order dated 01.04.2014, passed by another

Division Bench presided over by Uma Nath Singh and Zaki Ullah Khan,

JJ. and after hearing learned counsel for the applicants, found substance in

the contentions urged on their behalf and in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 10 of

the order dated 16.04.2014 made the following observations, which

occasioned constitution of the larger Bench which formulated the

aforestated question for its opinion:

“5. We have gone through the order passed by

the Division Bench on 1.4.2014 and find substance in

the contention of Shri Jaideep Mathur that there were

no allegations in the pleadings nor there were any

prayers made in the writ petition with regard to any

larger enquiry to be made, in the matter of

constructions and other financial matters in award of

contracts, relating to construction of the new High

Court building. The writ petition was filed for

quashing the FIR dated 15.3.2014 registered vide

Case Crime No.59 of 2014 under Sections 353, 323,

504, 506 and 427 IPC at Police Station Vibhuti

Khand, District Lucknow and for issuance of a writ of

mandamus restraining the police authorities from

arresting the petitioner. This Court after summoning

the officers of the Metro Rail Corporation, Senior

Superintendent of Police, Managing Director, U.P.

Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd, who had no concern with

the allegations, has made certain observations which

are injurious to reputation of the agency and its

officers. The observations and suggestion of

investigation of the matters relating to allegations

that only such contractors and sub contractors are

being given jobs, who are related to people in

4

power, be it executive or judiciary, create strong

ground of suspicion about the quality of

construction of new High Court building as well as

the buildings of subordinate judiciary, already

constructed or are still under construction at

various places in UP, have no connection with the

matter for quashing a FIR which was brought

before the Court.

6. We also do not find that any prayer was

made or any material was available before the

Bench to consider as to whether the investigation

shall be given to any independent agency or the

CBI and further there could be no reason as to why

the orders on such enquiry for which no prayer was

made by any person appearing in the matter were

reserved.

7. We also find that there are some

insinuations and remarks in the order with regard

to Committees of Hon'ble Judges of the Court,

which have been entrusted by Hon'ble the Chief

Justice the task to look after the quality of

constructions.

10. We are of the view that on the facts and

special circumstances placed before us we following

the judicial discipline and traditions of the Court and

the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar

Pradesh and others vs. Neeraj Chaubey and others

(supra) it is appropriate to refer the entire matter to

Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench

to hear and decide the writ petition. The larger bench

may formulate the question as may be necessary to be

decided by it. The registry will place the entire record

of the case before Hon'ble Chief Justice for

appropriate orders, forthwith and latest by tomorrow

for appropriate orders. ”

(emphasis supplied)

5.In view of the above, it becomes relevant to also note and

understand the background against which the order dated 01.10.2014 was

passed. The writ petition was filed by one Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu

for quashment of a First Information Report dated 15.03.2014, registered

5

vide Case Crime No. 59 of 2014, under Sections 353, 323, 504, 506 and

427 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District

Lucknow, and for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the police

authorities from arresting him. We do not deem it necessary to make

further reference to the FIR and the facts disclosed therein, since that may

not be relevant for addressing the question formulated by the Full Bench

and for expressing our opinion.

6.It appears from the order dated 01.04.2014 that when the writ

petition was placed before the very same Division Bench on 31.03.2014,

learned counsel for the parties had submitted that the allegations related to

the demand of bribe by a Junior Engineer of the UPRNN, a government

construction agency, which had also been assigned the job of construction

of a new High Court building at Lucknow and buildings of the

subordinate Courts at various places in the State. It was, therefore, urged

that the entire matter be enquired into by an independent agency under the

supervision of that Bench (Uma Nath Singh and Zaki Ullah Khan, JJ).

The Division Bench in the order dated 01.04.2014, referring to several

orders passed in Writ Petition No. 10089 of 2010 (MB) (PIL) [Oudh Bar

Association of High Court, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. &

Ors.] and after noticing the order passed in the instant writ petition on

31.03.2014, observed thus:

“Now, towards our aforesaid order dated

31.3.2014, Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Managing Director,

Lucknow, Metro Rail Corporation, Shri Pravin Kumar,

Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, Managing

Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., the

petitioner as well as Junior Engineer Shri Rajendra

6

Yadav and Station Officer, Police Station Vibhuti

Khand, are present in Court.

It is submitted on behalf of the State that the

impugned F.I.R. has been registered on the complaint

of Junior Engineer, Rajendra Singh Yadav against the

petitioner, who is a sub-contractor. Instead of passing

any direction for investigation by any other agency,

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, may be

directed to look into the correctness of cross

allegations and submit a report. The U.P. Rajkiya

Nirman Nigam, is headed by Shri R.N.Yadav,

Managing Director, who states that Sri Rajendra Singh

Yadav, Junior Engineer, against whom there is

allegation of demand of bribe is presently under

transfer from this project and till the investigation is

completed, he may not be assigned any job.

In the facts and circumstances set out

hereinabove, particularly, repeated assertion on

affidavit as well as in complaint by the petitioner that

30 % amount of the payment due is being demanded

as kick back to clear the bills and the Infrastructure

Committee of the High Court, which alone is

supervising the construction works is also feeling

disgusted with the allegations of rampant corruption in

the construction works of New High Court building

and subordinate Courts premises throughout the State

by the State Construction Agencies, we do not think

that any useful purpose will be served by handing

over the investigation to the local police …

Further, there is also a lot of murmuring

among the Judges of High Court, who have local

roots about corruption, undue favour in giving

contracts/sub contracts and kick back etc.

Moreover, as it also appears from the

complaint of petitioner that the U.P.Rajkiya

Nirman Nigam, through its Engineering Wing is

also fostering and promoting mafias, apart from

indulging in corruption with impunity, we think it

expedient to consider the submissions that such

matter may require thorough investigation.

Besides, the allegations that only such Contractors

and sub-contractors are being given jobs, who are

related to people in power, be it executive or

judiciary, also create strong ground of suspicion

7

about the quality of construction of new High

Court building as well as the buildings of

subordinate judiciary, already constructed or are

still under construction at various places in U.P.

As noticed hereinabove, since the Engineers

are also claiming patronage of the State

Government in earning illegal money, this Court

may have no option but to consider as to whether

the investigation should be given to C.B.I. to find

out the veracity of allegations as well as other areas

where the funds allocated for construction of High

Court buildings and buildings of subordinate

courts in the State have been illegally utilized or

diverted for private/personal use like the one

relating to construction and maintenance of

private buildings of persons, presently, directly or

indirectly, positioned in the helm of affairs.

Thus, we stay the arrest of petitioner in the

aforesaid case crime.

However, looking to serious consequence and

fall out that might follow if we direct inquiry by SIT

or CBI or any other independent agency into the

alleged demand of bribe, passing of kick backs,

diversion of funds, high payment, pilferage of

construction materials and showing favours in the

engagement of Contractor/sub contractors or suppliers

of materials etc. etc. relating to new High Court

building and other buildings of subordinate courts, we

think it appropriate and thus reserve the order on the

question of investigation by C.B.I. or any other

independent agency.”

(emphasis supplied)

7.Having noticed the observations made in the order dated

01.04.2014 by the Division Bench presided over by Uma Nath Singh, J.,

the Division Bench presided over by Sunil Ambwani, J., in the reference

order dated 16.04.2014, after having noticed the judgment of the Supreme

Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj Chaubey & Ors.,

(2010) 10 SCC 320 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt.

8

Maya Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., [2010 (83) ALR 664], made a

reference to the Full Bench.

In this backdrop, we would straightaway like to refer to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Neeraj Chaubey (supra) and the

judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Maya Dixit (supra). We shall

also refer to other judgments which, in our opinion, squarely cover the

question formulated by the Full Bench for opinion and which, in our

opinion, deserves to be answered in the negative.

8.In Maya Dixit, the Full Bench among others also considered the

question, whether a Bench conferred/assigned a particular work in terms

of Chapter V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, can hear matters

assigned to another Bench, and in paragraphs 17 and 17-A, observed thus:

“17. From the law as earlier quoted, it would be

clear that the Division Bench assigned with a

particular work can only do the work assigned and

cannot do the work assigned to another Division

Bench even in respect of earlier matter which it was

hearing when the Chief Justice had assigned work to

that Bench to take up the matter. After the

assignment has changed, unless specifically ordered the

previous Bench cannot hear the matter. Even in respect

of tied up matters, in terms of the rule quoted above, the

matter may ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for

disposal. The expression "ordinarily" would mean that

the authority empowered to assigning matters must

exercise that power to place the matter before the

Bench, which earlier had heard the matter. This can be

done in individual cases or by a general order. This rule

is based on the principle that a Bench having

substantially heard the matter and spent valuable

judicial time, must be allowed to ordinarily hear and

dispose of the matter. This power, therefore, could only

be exercised by the Chief Justice who constitutes the

Benches and not by the Registry of the Court, nor can a

Bench hold that it can proceed with the matter as a part

heard matter.

9

17.A. The order of the learned Bench in Noor

Mohammad (supra) dated 06.03.2009 was the subject-

matter of an SLP, which was disposed of on 06.04.2009

and a further clarification was issued on 28.08.2009,

which reads as under:-

"An application has been filed seeking

clarification of our order dated 6.4.2009. By

the said order the SLP filed by the petitioner

was dismissed. While dismissing the SLP, we

did not hold that the matter before the High

Court was a PIL. We only stated that if the

writ petition had been converted into a PIL

by the impugned order, the Registry will do

the needful by placing the matter before

appropriate Bench dealing with PILs as per

rules and guidelines. If the order of the High

Court did not convert the writ petition into a

PIL then obviously the said observation will

not apply. If there was any doubt regarding

posting, the matter ought to be placed before

learned Chief Justice of the High Court. With

the said observation, I.A. No.3 is disposed

of."

Thus, this would make it clear that even if a

Bench was hearing a matter assigned to it as per the

assignment and if in the course of hearing it proceeds

to consider reliefs not sought in the petition, but

which will fall within the PIL jurisdiction, then the

Bench is bound to direct the Registry to place the

matter before the learned Chief Justice for

appropriate directions or before the appropriate

P.I.L Bench. In other words, if that Bench is not

assigned PIL work, it cannot proceed to hear the

matter.”

(emphasis supplied)

9.In Neeraj Chaubey (supra), the Supreme Court considered the

matter relating to the new building of the High Court at Lucknow. The

matter before the Supreme Court arose from the orders dated 16.07.2010

and 25.08.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1872 of 1986. While dealing

with the impugned orders on merit, the Supreme Court also observed that

“we are concerned about the procedure adopted by the Division Bench

10

issuing such directions in an unconnected matter treating it as a PIL and

keeping the issue before the same Bench.” It appears that the Division

Bench, vide order dated 16.07.2010, had directed the State Government to

submit a status report about sanctioning of funds for construction of new

High Court Building Complex at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Having noticed

those directions, the Supreme Court also observed that directions

regarding construction of a new High Court building and early sanction of

required funds for execution of the work cannot be faulted, and having so

observed, made the observation as aforementioned, that the procedure

adopted by the Division Bench issuing such directions in an unconnected

matter treating it as a PIL was not proper. The observations made by the

Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 which are relevant for our purpose,

read thus:

“9. The High Court had taken note of various

judgments of this Court including State of

Mahasashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik

1

, Inder

Mani v. Matheshwari Prasad

2

, State of Rajasthan v.

Prakash Chand

3

, R. Rathinam v. State

4

and Jasbir

Singh v. State of Punjab

5

and various judgments of the

High Courts and came to the conclusion that the Chief

Justice is the master of roster. The Chief Justice has

full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of

allocation of business of the High Court which flows

not only from the provisions contained in sub-section

(3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act,

1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of things.

The Chief Justice enjoys a special status and he

alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and

to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or Full

Bench. He has jurisdiction to decide which case

1(1982) 2 SCC 440 : AIR 1982 SC 1198

2(1996) 6 SCC 587

3(1998) 1 SCC 1

4(2000) 2 SCC 391 : 2000 SCC (Crl) 958

5(2006) 8 SCC 294 : (2006) 3 SCC (Crl) 470

11

will be heard by which Bench. If the Judges were

free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was

given to them to do whatever case they may like to

hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would

collapse and the judicial work of the Court would

cease by generation of internal strife on account of

hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a

particular case. The Court held that a Judge or a

Bench of Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case

pending in the High Court only if the case is allotted

to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence

of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial

discipline and proper functioning of the Court. No

departure from this procedure is permissible.

10. In case an application is filed and the

Bench comes to the conclusion that it involves

some issues relating to public interest, the Bench

may not entertain it as a public interest litigation

but the court has its option to convert it into a

public interest litigation and ask the Registry to

place it before a Bench which has jurisdiction to

entertain the PIL as per the Rules, guidelines or by

the roster fixed by the Chief Justice but the Bench

cannot convert itself into a PIL and proceed with

the matter itself.”

(emphasis supplied)

10.In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2013) 2

SCC 398, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a somewhat similar

controversy, after referring to the judgment in Neeraj Chaubey, in

paragraph 29 observed thus:

“29. Judicial discipline and propriety are the two

significant facets of administration of justice. Every

court is obliged to adhere to these principles to ensure

hierarchical discipline on the one hand and proper

dispensation of justice on the other. Settled canons of

law prescribe adherence to the rule of law with due

regard to the prescribed procedures. Violation thereof

may not always result in invalidation of the judicial

action but normally it may cast a shadow of improper

exercise of judicial discretion. Where extraordinary

jurisdiction, like the writ jurisdiction, is very vast

in its scope and magnitude, there it imposes a

12

greater obligation upon the courts to observe due

caution while exercising such powers. This is to

ensure that the principles of natural justice are not

violated and there is no occasion of impertinent

exercise of judicial discretion.”

(emphasis supplied)

11.In State of Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand & Ors., (1998) 1 SCC

1, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, dealt with the requirement

of constitution of Benches, issuance of daily cause list and the powers of

the Chief Justice in terms of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949

read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India. After considering the

relevant provisions of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 and

Article 225 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has drawn the

following conclusions:

“(1) That the administrative control of the High

Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. On the judicial

side, however, he is only the first amongst the equals.

(2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the

roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute

benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches

so constituted.

(3) That the puisne Judges can only do that

work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or

under his directions.

(4) That till any determination made by the

Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who is to sit singly can

sit in a Division Bench and no Division Bench can be

split up by the Judges constituting the Bench

themselves and one or both the Judges constituting

such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of

judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or

under the directions of the Chief Justice.”

12.This Court in Prof. Y.C. Simhadri, Vice Chancellor, B.H.U. &

Ors. Vs. Deen Bandhu Pathak, Student, 2001 (4) AWC 2688, after

13

considering Rule 1 of Chapter V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, in

paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 observed thus:

“16. Thus, the following principles emerge from the

foregoing discussions:

(1) The administrative control of the High

Court vests in the Chief Justice alone and it is his

prerogative to distribute business of the High

Court both judicial and administrative.

(2) The Chief Justice alone has the right and

power to decide how the Benches of the High

Court are to be constituted : which Judge is to sit

alone and which cases he can and is required to

hear as also which Judges shall constitute a

Division Bench and what work those Benches

shall do.

(3) The puisne Judges can only do that work

which is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or

under his directions. No Judge or a Bench of

Judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending

in the High Court unless the case is allotted to him

or them by the Chief Justice.

(4) Any order which a Bench or a single

Judge may choose to make a case that is not

placed before them or him by the Chief Justice or

in accordance with his direction is an order

without jurisdiction and void.

(5) Contempt jurisdiction is an independent

jurisdiction of original nature whether emanating

from the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article

215 of the Constitution of India.

(6) For exercising the jurisdiction under

Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the

procedure prescribed by law has to be followed.

17. It appears that on 26.3.2001, when the learned

Judge passed the said order, he was allotted and assigned

the determination with regard to the following matters by

the Chief Justice as appears from the printed cause list:

"Fresh writs in educational matters (except

14

service writs) for orders, admission and hearing

and all single Judge writ-C for order, admission

and hearing including bunch cases".

The learned Judge on the face of the record,

therefore, had no determination assigned to him by the

Chief Justice with regard to the matters relating to

contempt and the said jurisdiction had been assigned to

another Hon'ble single Judge.

18. In view of the rule as already noted that the

power to constitute Benches and allotment of work to

the learned Judges vests absolutely in the Chief

Justice and the Rules 1, 6 and 17 of Chapter V and

Rule 2 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court

Rules also clearly provide for the same. In that view of

the matter, the order passed by the learned single

Judge in the instant case appears to us to be without

jurisdiction and void."

(emphasis supplied)

13.The legal position that emerges from the above judgments, is that

the roster and placing of cases before different Benches of the High Court

is unquestionably the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

In the absence of the Chief Justice, the seniormost Judge may pass

directions in regard to the roster of the Judges and listing of cases.

Primarily, it is the exclusively prerogative of the Chief Justice and does

not admit of any ambiguity or doubt in this regard. A Judge of the High

Court can sit alone or in Division Benches and do such work only as may

be allotted to him by an order of or in accordance with the directions of

the Chief Justice. As observed in Prakash Chand (supra), it is not within

the the competence or domain of any Judge sitting alone or in Division

Bench to give any direction to the Registry in that behalf which may run

contrary to the directions of the Chief Justice. Therefore, in the scheme of

things, judicial discipline demands that in the event a Single Judge or a

15

Division Bench considers that a particular case requires to be listed before

it for valid reasons, it should direct the Registry to obtain appropriate

orders from the Chief Justice. The puisne Judges are not expected to

entertain any request from the Advocates of the parties for listing of a

case which does not strictly fall within the determined roster. In such

cases, it is appropriate to direct the counsel to make a mention before the

Chief Justice and obtain appropriate orders. This is undoubtedly essential

for the smooth functioning of the Court. In other words, if a Bench was

hearing a matter assigned to it as per the assignment and if, in the course

of hearing, it proceeds to consider reliefs not sought in the petition but

which would fall within the PIL jurisdiction, then the Bench is bound to

direct the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for

appropriate directions or before the appropriate PIL Bench and, in any

case, it cannot proceed to hear the matter which is not assigned to it, as

observed by the Full Bench in Maya Dixit.

14.In the present case, the Division Bench was dealing with a writ

petition that was filed only for quashment of an FIR and, therefore, the

scope was limited. The Division Bench, in our opinion, traveled beyond

the scope of the writ petition and not only passed orders which were not

within its determined roster but made unnecessary and unwarranted

observations against those who were not even parties to the petition. The

Division Bench virtually converted the writ petition for quashment of an

FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, into a PIL when an independent PIL was

16

pending before this Court wherein such questions could have been raised.

In our opinion, the Bench, whether it is a Single Judge or a Division

Bench, should observe some restraint while making observations, of the

nature as made in the order dated 01.04.2014, which are wholly

unconnected with the subject matter of the petition, in the nature of

insinuations and/or remarks/observations against unconnected parties and

the prayers made in the petition.

15.In the circumstances, we hold that a Judge of the High Court

sitting alone or Judges sitting in a Division Bench, hearing any matter in

his/their determination assigned by the Chief Justice, cannot overstep into

the determination of another Judge sitting alone or in a Division Bench. If

any such issue or question arises in the matter including a question in

public interest which is not connected with the matter before him/them

and which in his/their opinion is necessary to be decided, in that situation

the only option open to the learned Judge or the Division Bench is to

direct the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for

appropriate directions or before the appropriate PIL Bench and, in any

case, should not convert such a writ petition into a PIL. The question is,

thus, answered accordingly in the negative.

16.It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the reference, a

charge sheet has been filed against the accused petitioner – Dinesh Kumar

Singh @ Sonu bearing Chargesheet No. 33 of 2014 on 14.04.2014 in Case

Crime No. 59 of 2014, registered at Police Station Vibhuti Khand,

Lucknow. In view thereof, it was submitted by leaned counsel for the

17

State that the writ petition deserves to be disposed of as rendered

infructuous, may be with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate

remedy if he so desires or to face trial. Mr. Digvijai Singh, learned

counsel for the petitioner could not and did not dispute the submission

made on behalf of the State and submitted that all contentions of the

petitioner may be kept open to be raised in appropriate proceedings. In the

circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition also as rendered

infructuous.

17.Insofar as the application filed by Ashok Pande for intervention in

the writ petition is concerned, we reject the same outright for more than

one reason. Firstly, he has absolutely no locus to address the Full Bench

on merits of the writ petition, and secondly because he has refused to

delete paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit which the Division Bench

vide order dated 28.04.2014 had directed him to consider. It would be

relevant to reproduce those paragraphs so as to demonstrate that Mr.

Ashok Pande has been wholly irresponsible and callous in his assertions.

This, we note, is apart from the fact that this Court has observed, time and

again, that he is in a habit of making unfounded and reckless allegations

not only against the judiciary but against any person:

“14. That in view of it the constitution of the

three judges bench to hear this matter is highly illegal

and unconstitutional. This amounts to indictment,

insult and misbehavior with the Sri Uma Nath and Sri

Zaki Ulla. Though the Chief Justice is master of the

roster but that does not give an authority to the Chief

Justice to insult and misbehave the good, honest, bold

judges.

15. That one more fact the applicant intends to

18

bring on the record of the matter is that a friend of

mine Sri R.N.S. Chauhan advocate who is also a close

friend of Sri Imtiaz Murtaza J. informed me that some

contractor approached him with a offer of 25 lakh

rupees in case he is able to manage a contract in his

favor with the Ashirvad/blessing of Sri Imtiaz

Murtaza J. Sri R.N.S. Chauhan denied the offer but

even then later on he was informed that the same

person has got the contract. This shows that the

contractors are moving around the High Court, the

resident of the judges and the resident of their nears

and dears with huge money for getting the contract.

The question is why the judges are so involved in the

award of contract? Whether it is judges work or it is

work of the bureaucracy? The bribe which was

offered to Mr. R.N.S. Chauhan Advocate went to

whom? How many such more contracts were awarded

and who received the bribe? On whose

recommendations and directions the contract of Civil

Court and High Court building are being awarded?”

18.When we commenced hearing, we once again requested Mr. Pande

to consider the deletion of paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit but he

refused to do so. Further, he repeatedly made an attempt to make

submissions in support of the observations made in the order dated

01.04.2014 and on the merits of the writ petition, and did not make any

submission on the question formulated for the opinion of this Bench. In

the circumstances, we reject his application for intervention on this

ground as also on the ground that he advanced no submissions on the

merits of the reference and continued to only repeat the allegations, as

made in the aforesaid paragraphs 14 and 15.

19.The request made by Mr. J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for UPRNN, that an action needs to be taken against Mr. Pande,

who is appearing in person, for making irresponsible, baseless, reckless

and unfounded allegations in paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit, either

19

for having committed criminal contempt of this Court and/or to restrain

him from entering the precincts of this Court at Lucknow and at

Allahabad in exercise of the powers under Rule 11 falling in Chapter

XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is kept open to be

considered at an appropriate stage.

January 5, 2017

AHA

(Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)

(D K Upadhyaya, J)

(Rajan Roy, J)

20

Writ Petition No. 2599 (M/B) of 2014

Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dilip B Bhosale, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J

Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J

Re: C.M. Application No. NIL of 2014 dated 28.04.2014 filed by Shri

Asok Pande for intervention

Rejected.

For orders, see order of date passed on the writ petition.

January 5, 2017

AHA

(Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)

(D K Upadhyaya, J)

(Rajan Roy, J)