Anil Garg vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 345 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29696 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Garg
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. Sole petitioner Anil Garg is challenging order dated 24.01.2014 passed by Principal Secretary (Pramukh Sachiv) Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.P., Lucknow, communicating sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act) for prosecution of petitioner under section 7 and 13 (1) (c) and 13(1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Act, 1988.

3. A complaint was made by Mr. Anil Singh, a Contractor, engaged with Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi, (hereinafter referred to as 'VDA') against petitioner for demanding bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for clearance of his bill of Rs. 87,000/-. Permission was taken from Secretary, Vigilance Department, Government of U.P., and trap was conducted on 01.08.2000. Petitioner was caught red handed in the said trap, accepting gratification of Rs. 10,000/- from complainant Anil Kumar Singh. Pursuant thereto, FIR, being Case Crime no. 355 of 2000 under section 7/13 of Act 1988 was registered. Investigation was conducted by Police and sanction for prosecution of petitioner was granted vide order dated 24.01.2014.

4. Charge-sheet dated 25.05.2014 was submitted before Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act, Varanasi) and trial is pending. In the meantime petitioner is said to have retired on 03.08.2013.

5. Petitioner has placed on record photo-state copy of extract notes and comments dated 20.11.2002 of Mr. A.B. Shukla, Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., wherein it has been mentioned that prior to incident of trap, petitioner had imposed fine of Rs. 25,000/- as a result of an inquiry on the complainant Contractor, therefore possibility cannot be ruled out that being prejudiced with aforesaid penalty, trap had been managed.

6. The above note also mentioned that Satish Kumar and Ganesh Yadav, two witnesses have not supported incident hence there may not be success in the ultimate trial against petitioner. Note dated 20.11.2002 was placed before Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning on 10.02.2003 who also endorsed the view taken by Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Remembrancer that incident might be due to enmity causing in above trap. Note was approved by Sri Lal Ji Tandon, the then Minister, Housing and Urban Development on 11.02.2003. Thereafter Shri J. S. Mishra, Secretary Urban Planning and Development sent letter dated 28.02.2003 to Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment, Varanasi Sector informing that there is a possibility of trap having been caused due to enmity by concerned contractor and there is no hope of success in prosecution, therefore, in consultation with department of law there is no justification for granting sanction for petitioner's prosecution.

7. Vigilance Department however insisted that decision should have been taken by concerned department with with prior approval of State Vigilance Council but Sri Sanjiv Kumar, Special Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning vide letter dated 02.06.2003 informed Sri Kuwar Fateh Bahadur, Secretary, Vigilance Department that trap was not arranged with prior approval of State Vigilance Council, therefore approval of said Council, before taking any decision on the matter of sanction against petitioner by concerned Administrative Department, is not required. It specifically said that concerned Administrative Department of petitioner has taken a decision for non grant of sanction of prosecution and the chapter be taken as closed.

8. The matter did not rest here. It appears that record was placed before Chief Minister on 08.04.2004 whereupon he directed to place the matter before State Vigilance Council (hereinafter referred to as 'Council') for consultation. Matter was placed before said Council and it recommended for grant of sanction for prosecution. Again record routed through Law Department who opined vide note dated 13.06.2005 that there being conflict in the view of Law Department and Council, matter be referred to Advocate General. Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, the then Advocate General vide note dated 04.01.2006 submitted his opinion agreeing with the opinion of Law Department that no useful purpose would be served by launching prosecution particularly since more than six years have passed. The file again routed through Law Department to the Housing and Urban Planning and Sri V. B. Singh, Secretary Housing and Urban Planning vide note dated 20.02.2007 sought approval of Chief Minister for declining to grant sanction in view of opinion of Advocate General. The then Chief Minister Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav signed record on 08.05.2007. Then it appears that matter was recommended for reconsideration but Principal Secretary, Law vide note dated 27.07.2010/01.09.2010 opined that there is no justification for reconsideration. Council however considered the matter on 01.07.2011 and recommended for fresh opinion of Advocate General by giving detailed facts that petitioner, Anil Gerg was caught red handed in a trap led on 01.08.2000 and therefore there is justification for prosecution Under Sections 7, 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Act 1988. Principal Secretary, Law directed matter to be placed before Advocate General but the then Advocate General vide note dated 08.09.2011 returned record with comment that with detailed note matter should be submitted for his opinion. Thereafter a detailed note was prepared giving chronological events. It was also pointed out that the view taken by Council in its meeting dated 01.07.2011 when it resolved to take opinion of Advocate General giving entire facts in detail was approved by the then Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati on 04.08.2011.

9. A detailed opinion thereafter recorded by Advocate General vide note dated 24.12.2013 which reads as under:-

^^mijksDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa fLFkfr bl izdkj gS%&

1- iz'kkldh; foHkkx }kjk U;k; foHkkx ds ijke'kZ dks Lohdkj djus ds mijkUr vkjksfir vf/kdkjh Jh vfuy xxZ dh iRuh ds izR;kosnu ds vk/kkj ij U;k; foHkkx ls iqu% ijke'kZ dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha Fkh rFkk vfHk;kstu pyk;s tkus gsrq Lohd`fr fuxZr dj nh tkuh pkfg;s FkhA U;k; foHkkx }kjk vius iwoZ esa fn;s x;s ijke'kZ ls fopfyr gksus dk dksbZ Bksl vk/kkj ugha FkkA

2- U;k; foHkkx }kjk fn;k x;k fHkUu er ftldk vuqeksnu rRdkyhu ea=h Jh ykyth V.Mu }kjk dj fn;k x;k Fkk ds dkj.k rRdkyhu eq[;ea=h ek0 eqyk;e flag ;kno th ds }kjk fnukad 08-04-2004 dks izdj.k ^^jkT; lrdZrk lfefr** ds le{k izLrqr djus dk vkns'k loZFkk mfpr FkkA

3- rRdkyhu ea[;ea=h th ds funsZ'kkuqlkj ^^jkT; lrdZrk lfefr** dh 121oha cSBd fnukad 30-05-2005 esa vfHk;kstu pyk;s tkus ds fy;s Lohd`fr tkjh djus dk fu.kZ; loZFkk mfpr Fkk rFkk mijksDr fu.kZ; ls ek0 eq[;ea=h th dks voxr djkus ds mijkUr rRdkyhu vfHk;kstu gsrq Lohd`fr tkjh dh tkuh pkfg;s Fkh tks fd ugha fd;k x;kA

4- rRdkyhu fo'ks"k lfpo fo/kk;h Jh fo".kq pUnz xqIrk ds le{k fofo/k Lohd`r tkjh djus dk vkys[k] fof/k{khr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk muds }kjk fnukad 13-06-2005 ¼i`"B&113½ ij ekuuh; egkf/koDrk ls ijke'kZ fy;s tkus dk lq>ko mfpr ugha FkkA muds }kjk fof/kd iwoZ Lohd`fr ds vkys[k dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkar i=koyh vfHk;kstu gsrq Lohd`fr tkjh djus gsrq iz'kklfud foHkkx dks okil dj nh tkuh pkfg, FkhA

5- rRdkyhu fo'ks"k lfpo U;k; ds }kjk fnukad 02-08-2005 ¼i`"B 116&117½ ij vfHk;kstu gsrq fof/kd Lohd`fr fuxZr fd;s tkus ls lEcfU/kr fVIi.kh fu;ekuqlkj ,oa mfpr Fkh ftldk vuqeksnu Hkh rRdkyhu izeq[k lfpo U;k; Jh /keZohj 'kekZ }kjk dj fn;k x;k FkkA

6- fnukad 02-08-2005 dks izeq[k lfpo U;k; }kjk vfHk;kstu gsrq lgefr iznku fd;s tkus ds mijkUr iz'kklfud foHkkx ds vuq lfpo Jh vt; dqekj flag }kjk fnukad 16-08-2005 ,oa 26-08-2005 dks izLrkfor fd;s x;s fodYi loZFkk vuqfpr rFkk vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dks ykHk igqWapkus dh n`f"V ls fd;s x;s Fks izrhr gksrs gSaA

7- rRdkyhu izeq[k lfpo lqjthr flag la/kw }kjk rRdkyhu egkf/koDrk ls ijke'kZ fd;s tkus dk vkns'k izeq[k lfpo U;k; ds }kjk fn;s x;s ijke'kZ fnukad 02-08-2005 ds foijhr FkkA

8- rRdkyhu fo'ks"k lfpo U;k; ,oa vij fof/k ijke'khZ Jh ,l0ds0 ik.Ms; ¼orZeku izeq[k lfpo U;k;½ ds }kjk egkf/koDrk dk er izkIr djus gsrq rRdkyhu ek0 eq[;ea=h th dk vkns'k izkIr djuk vfuok;Z crk;k x;k Fkk rFkk muds }kjk fnukad 05-12-2005 dks rRdkyhu egkf/koDrk ds ijke'kZ gsrq ekuuh; eq[;ea=h th ds vkns'k dh vfuok;Zrk dks fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds lekIr dj fn;k x;k rFkk i=koyh rRdkyhu egkf/koDrk ds ijke'kZ gsrq lanfHkZr djus dh vis{kk dh x;hA

9- rRdkyhu egkf/koDrk }kjk ijke'kZ fn;s tkrs le; U;k; foHkkx ds }kjk i`"B&50 ,oa i`"B 116&117 ij vfHk;kstu gsrq Lohd`fr tkjh djus ds ijke'kZ dks laKku esa fy;s fcuk gh] U;k; foHkkx }kjk i`"B&65 ij vfHk;kstu gsrq Lohd`fr u fn;s tkus ds ijke'kZ ls viuh lgefr O;Dr dj nh ftl ij fnukad 08-05-2007 dks rRdkyhu eq[;ea=h th dk vuqeksnu izkIr dj fy;k x;kA

10- ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd rRdkyhu eq[;ea=h ek0 eqyk;e flag ;kno th dks muds }kjk iwoZ esa fuxZr fd;s x;s vkns'k fnukad 08-04-2004 ftlesa fd izdj.k dks jkT; lrdZrk lfefr ds le{k izLrqr djus ds funsZ'k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks] dks muds laKku esa yk;s fcuk gh dsoy rRkdkyhu egkf/koDrk }kjk nh x;h jk; ij mudk vuqeksnu izkIr dj fy;k x;k] tks fd fuanuh; gSA

11- rRdkyhu izeq[k lfpo U;k; }kjk fnukad 01-09-2010 dks fn;k x;k ijke'kZ rF;ksa dh xgjkbZ ls Nkuchu fd;s fcuk gh izLrqr fd;k x;k tks fd mfpr ugha FkkA

jkT; lrdZrk lfefr }kjk 142oha cSBd fnukad 01-07-2011 esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ;] tks fd rRdkyhu eq[;ea=h th }kjk 04-08-2011 dks vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k ds lkis{k esjk fuf'pr vfHker gS fd%&

d& izdj.k dks 11 o"kZ ls vf/kd le; rd yfEcr j[kus rFkk rRdkyhu eq[;ea=h th dks xqejkg djus ds fy;s nks"kh deZpkfj;ksa @ vf/kdkfj;ksa dh igpku dj muds fo:) fu;ekuqlkj dM+h vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dh tk;A

esjh jk; esa U;k; foHkkx }kjk i`"B&50 ,oa i`"B&117 ij fn;k x;k ijke'kZ rFkk rRdkyhu eq[;ea=h th ds funsZ'kksa ds vuqikyu esa ^^jkT; lrdZrk lfefr** dh 121oha cSBd fnukad 30-05-2005 esa vfHk;kstu pyk;s tkus gsrq fof/kd iwoZ Lohd`fr tkjh fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; loZFkk mfpr gSA iz'kkldh; foHkkx }kjk fcuk fdlh foyEc ds ^^vfHk;kstu pyk;s tkus gsrq fof/kd iwoZ Lohd`fr** rRdky tkjh dj nh tk;A

esjk mijksDr vfHker ek0 eq[;ea=h th ds vuqeksnu gsrq visf{kr gSA**

" In view of the aforesaid facts the circumstances are as under:-

1. After acceptance of opinion of the Nyay Vibhag by the Administrative Deptt , the opinion on the representation moved by the wife of charged officer Sh Anil Garg was not required to be again sought from the Nyay Vibhag and prosecution sanction should have been granted. There was no solid ground for not placing reliance on the opinion given earlier by the Department of Justice.

2. On the basis of different opinions given by the Nyay Vibhag approved by the then Minister Sh Lal Ji Tandon, the order dated 08.04.2004 of then Chief Minister Hon Mulayam Singh Yadav directing the matter to be presented before the "State Vigilance Committee" was entirely proper.

3. As per direction of the then Chief Minister, decision regarding granting prosecution sanction in the 121st meeting of the "State Vigilance Committee" held on 30.05.2005 was entirely proper and after apprising the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the aforesaid decision, prosecution sanction should have been granted which was not done.

4. The different sanction orders had been presented before the then Special Secretary (Law) Sh Vishnu Chandra Gupta for getting it legally examined and his suggestion dated 13.06.2005 (page 113) for seeking concurrence of the Hon'ble Advocate General was not proper. After examination of prosecution sanction order by him, the file should have been returned to the administrative department for issue of prosecution sanction.

5. The remark made on 02.08.2005 (Page 116 - 117) by the then Special Secretary (Law) for issue of legal sanction for prosecution was proper and in accordance with the law which was also approved by the then Principal Secretary, Law Sh Dharmveer Sharma.

6. After granting sanction for prosecution on 02.08.2005 by the Principal Secretary, Law, the proposals dated 16.08.2005 and 26.08.2005 made by Sh Ajay Kumar Singh, Under Secretary, Administrative Department seem to be entirely inappropriate and issued with intention to extend benefit to the charged officer.

7. The order of the then Principal Secretary Surjeet Singh Sandhu for seeking concurrence of the then Advocate General was contradictory to the order dated 02.08.2005 of the Principal Secretary, Law.

8. Shri SK Pandey, the then Special Secretary, Nyay and Additional Legal Remembrancer, (presently Principal Secretary, Nyay) had stated it to be mandatory to obtain the order of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister for seeking the opinion of the Advocate General and on 05.12.2005, without any reason, dispensed with the necessity of any order from the Hon'ble Chief Minister for seeking the advice of the then Advocate General, and desired the file to be referred to the then Advocate General for advice.

9. At the time of giving advice, the then Advocate General, even without taking note of the advice as given on pages 50 and 116-117 by the Department of Nyay for approval to prosecution, expressed his concurrence with the advice as given by it on the page 65 for not according approval to prosecution; whereupon approval of the then Chief Minister was obtained on 08.05.2007.

10. It appears that merely on the basis of the advice given by the then Advocate General, the approval of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav was obtained without bringing into his cognisance his previous order dated 08.04.2004 in which the instructions had been issued to put the matter before the State Vigilance Committee. Obtaining of approval in such a way is condemnable.

11. The advice given on 01.09.2010 was presented by the then Principal Secretary, Nyay without minutely examining the facts; which was improper.

In relation to the decisions taken by the State Vigilance Committee at the 142nd meeting on 01.07.2011, which were approved by the then Chief Minister on 04.08.2011, it is my firm opinion : -

A - For keeping the matter pending for more than 11 years and misguiding the then Chief Minister, guilty officials/officers be identified and strict disciplinary action be taken against them.

In my opinion, the advice given by the Department of Nyay on pages 50 and 117 and the decision to issue a legal 'prior approval' for the prosecution taken at the 121st meeting of the State Vigilance Committee on 30.05.2005 in compliance with the directions of the then Chief Minister, is quite proper. Without causing any delay, a legal 'prior approval' for the prosecution be issued immediately by the administrative department.

The aforesaid opinion of mine be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister for approval." (English translation by Court)

10. The aforesaid note was placed before Sri S. K. Pandey, Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Remembrancer who put in signature on 26.12.2013 and thereafter it was approved by the then Chief Minister. Thereafter letter dated 24.01.2014 has been issued granting sanction.

11. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that unless there is some fresh material, decision already taken by State Government could not have been changed. In support reliance has been placed on the decision of Apex Court in State of Himanchal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen 2010 (14) SCC 527. We have gone through the above decision. Therein Nishant Sareen, a Drug Inspector posted at Bilashpur (Himanchal Pradesh) was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- by complainant Dr. Ramdhan Sharma, owner of a Hospital. On the said complaint a First Information Report no. 1/2005 was registered under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of Act 1988 at Police Station AC Zone, Bilaspur. A raid party under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police laid a trap on May 12, 2005 and caught Nishant Sareen, red-handed, accepting bribe from the said complainant. Sri Nishant Sareen was arrested and produced before Court. Subsequently he was released on bail. Vigilance Department sought for sanction under Section 19 of Act 1988 to prosecute Nishant Sareen. In the State of Himanchal Pradesh, as per Rules of Business, it was an admitted case before Court that Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh himself was Competent Authority to accord sanction in the matter. Principal Secretary (Health) observed that case registered by complainant appears to be frivolous and has resulted in unnecessary harassment and hindrance in the functioning of Drug Inspector, hence there is no justification for launching prosecution. Thus sanction was denied. Vigilance Department requested Principal Secretary (Health) to reconsider the matter whereupon vide order dated March 15, 2008 Principal Secretary (Health) granted sanction. Referring to provisions of Section 19 of Act 1988, Court observed that object of sanction is to ensure that a public servant does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted and unsubstantiated allegations. Exercise of power under Section 19 is not an empty formality. Sanctioning Authority is expected to apply its mind to entire material and evidence placed before it and reach to a conclusion fairly, objectively and consistent with public interest as to whether or not in the facts and circumstances sanction be accorded to prosecute a public servant. Court also referred to its earlier decision in State of Punjab and others Vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92, wherein specific question came up for consideration was, "whether state can review its decision in the matter of grant of sanction." Court had taken a view that it cannot be said that power once exercised cannot be exercised again. For exercising jurisdiction in the context of sanction, express power of review in the State is not necessary since such a power is administrative in character. It further held that once Government passes order declining sanction to prosecute public servant, review on the basis of same material would not be appropriate or permissible. Following above decision in State of Punjab and others vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti (supra), Supreme Court in State of Himanchal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen held that it is true that government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in absence of express power of review in no circumstances whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. The sound principle to follow would be that once statutory power has been exercised by Competent Authority, it is not permissible to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. However, in a case where fresh material has been collected by investigating agency subsequent to earlier order and placed before Competent Authority, on that material, matter may be reconsidered and if a fresh decision is taken, it cannot be said bad.

12. The above decision has no application to the facts of this case for the reason that in the present case decision to decline sanction was communicated by concerned Administrative Department without prior approval of Council though under the Rules of Business it was necessary. This fact has been noticed and pointed out in the opinion of Advocate General and therefore earlier letter cannot be said to have been issued by concerned Administrative Department in accordance with Rules of Business.

13. Be that as it may, there is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly petitioner retired on 03.08.2013. It is not the case where cognizance by criminal Court is under challenge on the ground of want of sanction or a decision declining to sanction. It is now well established that sanction is required when concerned public servant is holding office but once he has retired on the date cognizance is taken by Court, no sanction is required under section 19 of Act 1988.

14. In State of Punjab vs. Labh Singh, (2014) 16 SCC 807 an FIR was lodged on 13.08.1997 against certain government servants of State of Punjab and investigation was undertaken by Vigilance Bureau. However, sanction to prosecute Government servants was denied by concerned department on 13.09.2000. Another attempt was made from government to seek sanction in the year 2003 which was also rejected by the department on 24.09.2003. Prosecution however, despite refusal of sanction, filed challan under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code in the Court on 09.11.2004. Challan included two public servants namely Shri Sikandar Singh, Sub Divisional Officer and Shri Labh Singh, Junior Engineer of Public Works Department of State of Punjab. Both these officers had retired on 13.12.1999 and 30.04.2000 respectively. Court framed charges on 07.06.2005 under section 13(1)(C) read with section 13(1) and (2) of Act 1988 read with Section 218/409/465/467/120B IPC. Order of framing charge passed on 07.06.2005 was challenged by above two officers in a Criminal Revision before High Court which was allowed on the ground that sanction was already declined by State, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted. In appeal preferred by State, Supreme Court held:

"The law on the point is quite clear that sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offences under the POC Act is not required if the public servant had already retired on the date of cognizance by the court. " (emphasis added)

15. Similar view was taken in S.A. Venkataraman v. The State, AIR 1958 SC 107 which was in the context of Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which is a provision pari materia of Section 19(1) of Act, 1988 and therein Court held that no sanction is necessary in the case of a person who has ceased to be a public servant at the time Court was asked to take cognizance. Above view is followed in C.R. Bansi vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 537 ; State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Manmal Bhutoria and Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 440; and, Kalicharan Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411.

16. In L. Narayana Swamy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (2016) 9 SCC 598 same view was taken following earlier judgment in Abhay Singh Chautala v. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2011) 7 SCC 141 and it was held that relevant time is the date on which cognizance is taken. If on that date appellant was not a public servant there was no question of any sanction.

17. In this view of the matter, even otherwise, since petitioner had already retired on 03.08.2013, sanction under Section 19 of Act 1988 is not necessary for a Court to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Act, 1988 and, therefore also we find no reason to interfere in the present case.

18. Before parting, there is one more aspect whereon we would like to make our observations. Petitioner with impunity has filed photostat copies of Secretariate files containing notes of various authorities including Principal Secretary, Ministers and Chief Minister. In the entire writ petition it is not stated, how he could get hold of these documents and who provided these documents to him. Petitioner, an officer of a statutory body i.e. V.D.A., in the official discharge of duties had no occasion to deal with aforesaid files and could have no access to said documents. It is thus evident that he has extraordinary resources in the Secretariat of Government so as to have access to any official record and if so desires may even get photocopies thereof. When we questioned learned counsel for petitioner during course of argument as to where from he got these documents, he said that there is no bar and it is not necessary to disclose the manner in which petitioner has got those documents. Documents have been filed along with affidavit and Court must peruse the same to adjudicate the contention advanced by petitioner. Any document which has not been obtained by petitioner from custodian of document, validly and in accordance with law, should not be considered by Court else it would encourage scrupulous persons and wrong practice by filing privileged documents for their own benefits. We therefore deprecate the conduct of petitioner and direct State Government to make appropriate inquiry in the matter and punish guilty persons suitably. We do not propose to make further comments on this aspect.

19. In view of above discussion we find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :- 4.5.2018

Swati/AK