Maya Wati vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 550 Del

ORDER

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. On 30.3.1998 the petitioner approached this Court by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashing of F.I.R.1(A) of 1998 registered on 18.3.1998 for offences under Sections 120-B/409/420/467/468/471 and 477A Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Copy of the F.I.R. sought to be quashed is Annexure-P.2. Another direction, which the petitioner sought was that she should not be arrested in connection with the registration of the aforementioned F.I.R. without the prior permission of this Court. Along with the petition, miscellaneous application (Cr.M.No.1869/98) was also filed under Section 482 read with Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for stay of her arrest till final disposal of the petition.

2. Considering the averments made in the petition as also the accompanying application and noticing that prima facie the petitioner's involvement as Chief Minister was not mentioned in the F.I.R. (annexure-P.2), while issuing show cause notice in the main petition, an interim order was passed on 1.4.1998 directing that till the next date, in the event of the petitioner's arrest in connection with the aforementioned F.I.R., she will be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

3. The respondent opposed the petition by filing its reply on the affidavit of Shri Ravinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Unit (IV), New Delhi, the Investigating Officer of the case, to which rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner.

4. The facts as alleged in the petition on which aforementioned F.I.R. is sought to be quashed may be narrated briefly.

5. The petitioner is a member of Lok Sabha and is National Vice President of Bahujan Samaj Party (for short "B.S.P."). After the Assembly Elections of 1996, there was a political stalemate in Uttar Pradesh. In order to give a representative Government to the people of Uttar Pradesh, B.S.P. and Bhartiya Janta Party (for short "B.J.P.") entered into an arrangement under which it was decided to form a Coalition Government. During the first six months the petitioner was to be the Chief Minister and during the latter half a nominee of B.J.P. was to head the Coalition Government. As per the arrangement, the petitioner was sworn in as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh on 21.3.1997. On completion of six months the petitioner vacated the office of Chief Minister. The charge was handed over to Shri Kalyan Singh, the nominee of B.J.P. It is alleged that Shri Kalyan Singh started undoing the acts, which she had taken for the benefit of down trodden classes. On 22.9.1997 Shri Kalyan Singh issued a Government order making the Prevention of Atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, virtually non-functional. As the B.S.P. could not have gone back of its commitment to Dalits, it was compelled to withdraw the support from the Ministry of Shri Kalyan Singh on 19.10.1997.

6. It is alleged that soon after the support was withdrawn, Shri Kalyan Singh started making baseless and wild allegations against the petitioner, in order to tarnish her image politically. Efforts were made to frame her in false cases of corruption. None of the allegations against the petitioner had a grain of truth. Even the public interest litigation was also filed at the instance of B.J.P. in the Supreme Court, namely, Writ Petition (C) No.623/97 titled as Dharam Pal Singh and others v. Mayawati and another, which was dismissed on 12.12.1997 in limine.

7. It is alleged that on 15.3.1998 Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee was invited by the President of India to form Government at the Centre. On 18.3.1998 Uttar Pradesh State Unit of B.J.P. sent a complaint from Lucknow to the respondent alleging financial irregularities in the purchase of 143 portable fire fighting floating pumps during the petitioner's regime as Chief Minister. On receipt of the complaint on 18.3.1998, the respondent promptly registered the aforementioned impugned F.I.R. (R.C.No.1A/98) for the aforementioned offences. Before registration of the case, no preliminary enquiry as is usually done was conducted. The respondent did not apply its mind at all and registered the case just in order to please the B.J.P., which was likely to assume power at the Centre. Soon after the registration of F.I.R. wide publicity was given through Doordarshan and other media in order to pressurize the petitioner and her party M.Ps. to fall in line and support the Confidence Motion, which was to be brought by the B.J.P. Government in the Lok Sabha.

8. The petitioner has alleged that from the allegations made in the F.I.R. it is apparent that the transaction does not relate to her tenure as Chief Minister. It commenced when the State of U.P. was under President's Rule and Shri Moti Lal Vohra was the Governor. During President's Rule in 1995 the State had initiated a scheme for the setting up of fire fighting equipment at 300 rural centres. Tenders were invited on 27.12.1995 by Shri Lalit Sirivastava, the Director of Fire Services, U.P., which were submitted by seven companies. Ultimately on 23.3.1996 an order was placed on M/s.Fire Challengers, Chennai for supply of 157 fire fighting floating pumps. The petitioner was no where in the picture at that time. Warranty period of the supplies expired in March, 1997. As no complaint had been received for the pumps supplied during the President's Rule, the petitioner's Government placed a repeat order on 12.8.1997 for the remaining 143 floating pumps on the same terms and conditions, as negotiated during President's Rule. During her regime fresh transaction was not negotiated. Only the remaining part of the earlier deal was repeated.

9. It is further alleged that the bill for 143 fire fighting pumps, supplied during the petitioner's regime was for Rs.3,66,72,880/-. On 26.8.1997 payment to the extent of 90% of the bill was made. The balance payment of 10% was to be made on 12.9.1997. Even though the entire payment was to be made during the period of first six months of the Coalition Government, headed by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1.00 crore was not released by way of abundant caution. Had there been any dishonest intention, the entire amount would have been released before the charge was handed over to Shri Kalyan Singh.

10. It is alleged that the supplier invoked arbitration clause. The only two allegations made in the F.I.R., namely, (i) there was reduction in customs duty from 44% to 22% in the financial year 1996 and the price of the fire fighting floating pumps were not reduced in proportion with the reduction in customs duty; and (ii) there are complaints about the quality of floating pumps supplied ought to have been agitated by the Government of U.P. during the arbitration proceedings, but Shri Kalyan Singh was not interested in protecting the financial interest of the State. Had he been so interested, the State would definitely have appointed its own arbitrator, when the supplier invoked the arbitration clause. The State also did not respond to the notices repeatedly issued by Shri K.Natarajan, the arbitrator appointed by the supplier. No contest was made to the arbitration proceedings. Ultimately the State suffered an ex parte award of Rs.2,90,95,555/-. Copy of the award dated 26.3.1998 is annexed as Annexure-P.3.

11. The petitioner has alleged that there is not even a whisper about her complicity in the F.I.R. Despite that she has been arrayed as accused No.1, only in order to tarnish her image amongst the people. Registration of F.I.R. solely is the result of political vendetta, in order to tarnish her image. Without there being any allegation of the petitioner's complicity. F.I.R. was registered with a view to bring unlawful and illegal pressure on the petitioner to vote in favour of the confidence motion in the Lok Sabha on 28.3.1998.

12. On the basis of the above allegations, the petitioner sought quashing of the F.I.R. The allegations made in the petition have been supported on the petitioner's own affidavit, sworn to be true to her knowledge. On the basis of these allegations, interim relief was granted in to her.

13. In reply the respondent vehemently contested the petitioner's stand particularly about the manner in which the facts have been narrated. The respondent denied that a complaint was sent by the State Unit of B.J.P. on 18.3.1998 from Lucknow or that on the basis of the said complaint F.I.R. was registered. An objection is also raised that the petitioner with a view to obtain relief from the Court furnished false and vague information, suppressed facts deliberately and has tried to mislead the Court.

14. It is stated in the reply that a source information dated 20.10.1997, marked to the respondent by the DP&T was received in the office of the respondent. On receipt thereof the same was verified from various sources. Only on proper verification the respondent on 18.3.1998 registered case No.RC-1(A)/98-ACU(V) for offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Amongst nine others, the petitioner is an accused person. It is stated that annexure-P.2 (annexed to the writ petition) stated by the petitioner to be the F.I.R. in question is not the correct F.I.R. Vital factual information therein like place of occurrence, name of the complainant, provisions of law etc. are wrong. Contents have also not been stated. Thus it is stated that there is suppression of material facts. Deliberately false and vague information was supplied to the Court with a view to mislead and obtain relief.

15. The respondent alleged that it was during her regime as Chief Minister of U.P. that a proposal was initiated in August, 1995 for starting Fire Services in Rural areas and to purchase 300 floating pumps at a cost of Rs.5.35 crores. On 6.9.1995 approval was given by the petitioner as Chief Minister. The funds were also sanctioned from the contingency fund. As per the rules, the procurement of portable pumps was to be made through the Directorate of Industries but the petitioner, who was then the Chief Minister, on 13.10.1995 ordered that the procurement may be done by the Fire Services Department. It was an illegal decision on her part. Apparently, there was no urgency as the pumps were required for the months of April to June. In the meanwhile, the petitioner resigned. The matter was reviewed by the then Governor of U.P., who cancelled the petitioner's decision for direct purchase of floto pump by Fire Department. 157 pumps were purchased during the Governor's regime through Directorate of Industries, Kanpur. When the petitioner again became the Chief Minister in 1997, a proposal was initiated for the purchase of 143 pumps, which was approved by the petitioner as Chief Minister, who on 30.7.1997 also sanctioned an amount of Rs.4.65 crores.

16. M/s.Fire Challenger submitted request to the Directorate General Fire Services for awarding a repeat order for supply of 143 floating pumps. As per the rules, repeat order can be issued only within a period of six months of the date of previous purchase and that also only for 50% of the quantity after ensuring that the prices have not reduced after the first order was placed. The quantity to be purchased was more than 50% of the first order. The custom duty had in the meanwhile been reduced by 3%. Despite this the proposal was approved by the petitioner as Chief Minister on 8.8.1997.

17. The respondents have further alleged that the petitioner while functioning as Chief Minister, herself on 19.9.1997 wrote a letter for making payment of the pumps and for taking serious action against the errant officials. The reply further states that accused Devnathan, the Proprietor of M/s.Fire Challenger is the President of B.S.P., Tamil Nadu Unit and had political connections with the petitioner.

18. It is also stated that on receipt of the consignment of 143 pumps an inspection committee carried out inspection of individual floating pumps. The inspection team pointed out several short comings, doubting the genuineness of the pumps being from the Waterous Company, U.S.A., as the plastic stickers of the Company were only found on the pumps. Actual name of the Company was not engraved on the pumps. Director of Vigilance Anti Corruption, Madras had also intimated that the firm M/s.Fire Challenger had come to their adverse notice against certain supplies made to the State Government. Custom Department also intimated the cost of imported pump as Rs.46,743/- on which custom duty was Rs.10,283/-. Thus the total cost of one pump was Rs.57,026/-. As against this cost of the pump, M/s.Fire Challenger supplied the pumps at an exorbitant rate of Rs.2,49,000/- per pump. Enquiry further revealed that neither the petitioner, nor the other co-accused who have been imp leaded along with the supplier, applied their minds and allowed the exorbitant price of the pumps to the supplier.

19. The reply states that the F.I.R. definitely discloses a prima facie case against the petitioner and nine others. The respondents have denied the allegation of malafide specifically denying that a complaint was received from B.J.P.Unit of Lucknow or that the F.I.R. was registered on that basis. On the other hand, it is stated that on receipt of source information on 20.10.1997, the matter was got inquired into. Verification was got made. As a result whereof F.I.R. was duly registered.

20. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has not disputed the fact that it was during her regime as Chief Minister in 1995 that a proposal had been made for purchase of 300 pumps. Non disputing the respondent's' stand that annexure-P.2 is not the correct copy of the F.I.R., it is claimed that the preliminary inquiry report, purported to have been submitted by Dr.R.K.Garg, S.P., C.B.I. on 18.3.1998 cannot form part of the F.I.R. The purpose of preliminary inquiry is to verify the allegations made in the complaint before registration of the case so that the public functionaries are saved from vexatious and frivolous prosecution. The complaint dated 20.10.1997 by Shri Rajiv Ratan Shah, Principal Secretary (Home) alone has to be treated as F.I.R. The petitioner in rejoinder raised another ground to assail the F.I.R. on merits saying that no thorough inquiry was made by Dr.R.K.Garg from local market or from the foreign manufacturer about the Waterous Floating Pumps or from the other customer institutions, who purchased such pumps from M/s.Fire Challenger. The inquiry overlooked the fact that the entire transaction was thoroughly reviewed by a Finance Purchase Committee during the President's Rule and that the purchase of 157 waterous floating pumps at the rate of Rs.2.49 lakhs was duly approved by the then Governor. The petitioner has tried to justify the approval given by her stating that as the earlier Finance Purchase Committee had submitted its report, which was duly approved by the Governor, therefore, repeat order was made, for which she could not be held responsible as the approval was granted only after considering the recommendations of the Finance Purchase Committee. She states that there was no dishonest intention on her part. She approved the recommendations of the Secretary, Small Industries, after considering the requirement of the Fire Services Department and the reasons given by the Ministry for regularisation of the Rules framed in 1989 by the then Chief Minister. She states that the financial interest of the State was adequately taken note of.

21. In the light of the aforementioned pleadings, the parties made their submissions.

22. The main thrust of the submissions made by Shri Vikram Mahajan, on behalf of the petitioner have been that it is a case of political vendetta. The facts as stated in the F.I.R. at the most fall in the category of civil dispute. Initiation of criminal proceedings is unwarranted and is total abuse of power. The supplier had already invoked arbitration clause by nominating his arbitrator, the notice of the same was acknowledged by the State of U.P. As there was no response from the State of U.P., the arbitrator nominated by the supplier became the sole arbitrator, who also served notice on the State through the Directorate of Industries fixing hearing. The State did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. The aribitrator, as such proceeded to make and publish his award on 26.3.1998, which now is under challenge by the State under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In view of the fact that award has been made, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. Another ground though not taken in the writ petition but was urged during the course of arguments was that the respondent deliberately and in a planned manner proceeded only against the Dalit Members of the Finance Purchase Committee and left out the upper caste members, which smacks of malafides. On merits, Mr.Mahajan contended that the petitioner merely approved the placing of repeat order at the same rate, which earlier had been approved during the Governor's regime. It was urged that there was no suppression of material facts or misstatement. Annexure-P.2, except for small variation the dates etc. was almost similar to the FIR. Copy of which was filed by the respondent.

23. Taking the respondent's objection as regards suppression of material facts, deliberate mis-statement and making false statement first, needless to add that the petitioner came to the Court alleging that it was the B.J.P.Unit Lucknow, which on 18.3.1998 sent a complaint. On receipt thereof promptly, without verification or inquiry, the respondent proceeded to register the case thereupon. The petitioner thus based her claim on the document annexure-P.2 by asserting that no role in the said F.I.R. has been assigned to her. As such, it was a fit case for quashing of the F.I.R. against her, as the same was result of political vendetta.

24. In annexure-P.2, date and time of the report is correctly mentioned as 18.3.1998. Place of occurrence is mentioned as Lucknow and Kanpur, whereas in the copy of the F.I.R. filed by the respondent, it is Lucknow, Kanpur ( U.P.) and Chennai. Name of the complainant in annexure-P.2 is shown as Shri Rajiv Ratan Shah, Principal Secretary (Home). In the copy filed by the respondent it is shown as 'source'. The offences mentioned by the petitioner are also different than those mentioned in the copy of the FIR filed by the respondent. These are minor differences and are ignorable. However, material difference in the two documents will be noticed on appreciation of what is alleged in the petition and comparing the contents of the documents, as has been noticed by us hereinafter.

25. In order to highlight that her involvement as C.M. is not disclosed in the F.I.R., the petitioner heavily relied upon the contents of P.2 (which according to the affidavit filed by her is the correct F.I.R.), which reads:-

"Dear Sir,

It was decided to set up 300 centres for seasonal fire fighting arrangements in the rural areas of Uttar Pradesh for the year 1995 and an amount of Rs.5.35 crores was arranged for the purchase of 157 floating pumps and other equipment. The equipment was purchased from M/s Fire Challenger, 5-C, Mookambika Complex, 5th floor No.4, Lady, Chennai. This complaint is against the said firm.

     Prima  facie it has come to the knowledge that the  customs  duty      has been reduced to 22% from 44% which was prevalent in 1966.  On      the other hand, order was placed in 1997 at the 2 year old  rates      and the benefit of reduction of 22% customs duty during the  said      interval was given to the seller and not to the Government. 
 

     That  an  amount of Rs.4.65 crores was sanctioned on  30th  July,      1997 for the purchase of the above mentioned floating pumps, etc.      for the remaining 143 centres out of 300 centres. It was  decided      that  the  tools and equipments would be  purchased  through  the      Directorate of Industries in accordance with the custom rules and      directions and all the formalities as per rules would be complied      with.  The  Director General, Fire Services took action  for  the      purchase in the year 1997-98 through the agency of Directorate of      Industries,  Uttar Pradesh and made purchases of 40 pumps on  the      basis of the sanction letter, dated 23-6-1997. Order for the  103      pumps was again issued later on. 
 

     In  the  process, there is a difference between the  prices  mentioned  in  the Bill of Entry and the prices at which  the  goods      were  supplied.  M/s Fire Challenger had to supply  the  floating      pumps  after importing the same. According to the Bill of  Entry,      the  cost of one pump was at Rs.40,467.48 P. and the  price  mentioned  in another Bill of Entry was Rs.46,282.35.P.  As  against      this,  the supply was made @ Rs.2.49 lakhs per  pump.  Complaints      have  been brought to the knowledge of the Government  about  the      quality of the pumps also. There appear financial  irregularities      in  the  whole  transaction of purchase.  Collusion  is  apparent      between the Fire Services Department and the senior officials  of      the Department of Industries of Government of Uttar Pradesh. 
 Lucknow                            Sd/-
                                   Rajeev Ratan Shah,
18-3-1998                          Principal Secretary(Home),
                                   Government of Uttar Pradesh

 

     The  facts  narrated above prima facie  discloses  commission  of      offences under Section 120B/ 409/ 420/467/ 468/ 471/477A IPC  and      13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the P.C. Act, 1998. 
 

     A regular case is accordingly registered and is entrusted to  Sri 
     R.Singh, Deputy S.P. ACU(V), CBI, New Delhi. 
                                    Sd/- Supdt. of Police        
                                   ACU(V), CBI, New Delhi."

 

26.  The document produced by the petitioner would thus suggest that on the basis  of the letter dated 18.3.1988 of Shri Rajeev Ratan  Shah,  Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh without any inquiry or  verification  F.I.R.  was registered stating that the  contents  thereof  prima facie     discloses     commission    of     offence     under     Sections 120B/409/420/467/468/471/477-A I.P.C. and 13(2) read with Section  13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As such F.I.R. is registered, which is entrusted  to Shri R.Singh, Dy.S.P.ACU(V) C.B.I. By annexure-P.2 the  petitioner tried to suggest that without her involvement shown in the letter of 10th March, 1998 of Mr.Shah, the respondent without any application of mind and in a mechanical manner proceeded to name her as one of the accused. But the  position  is otherwise. Letter of Shri Rajeev  Ratan  Shah,  Principal Secretary  (Home)  Government of Uttar Pradesh sent to Shri  Arvind  Verma, Secretary  to the Government of India, New Delhi This was the  information, which was stated to have been received on source information. This information  on verification, according to the respondents, revealed  prima  facie commission  of  a cognizable offence, which resulted in registration  of  a case  on  18.3.1998.  The contents of the F.I.R. (copy of  which  has  been produced by the respondent) reads:- 
 
 

     "The  verification of above information has revealed that  during      the  relevant periods, Ms. Mayawati was Chief Minister  of  U.P.,      Sh. Pritam Singh was Director of Industries, Sh. J.N.Chamber  was      Secretary to the Govt. of U.P. Small Industries and Export Promotion  Department,  Smt. Manisha Pawa was Joint  Secretary,  Small      Industries Deptt., Sh. Yashpal Singh was IG of fire Services, Sh.      Prakash  Singh was DIG in Fire Services, Sh. Daleep Ganga  Prasad      Karsolia  was Dy. Director of Fire  Services,  Sh.O.P.Shrivastava      was  joint  Director (Purchase), Sh. Devanath was Prop.  of  M/s.      Fire Challenger, Madras. 
 

     Sh. Yashpal Singh, IG moved a proposal in August,1995 for  starting Fire Services in the rural areas and requested for purchasing      300  floating  pumps at the costs of Rs.5.35 crores.  The  reason      given for the requirement of the pumps was that in the months  of      April-June,  the temperature rises very high and the  possibility      of  occurrence of a fire due to carelessness increase very  much.      Sh. DG Karsolia and Sh. Hansraj Mishra both Dy.Director,  Technical,  jointly prepared the specification of the pump to  be  purchased and mentioned the approximate price Rs.2.75 lac per  pump.      It  is alleged that pump of Sh. Devanathan's company was  already      got  demonstrated through Sh. D.G.P.Karsolia, and the  specifications and price of the pumps in the proposal were prepared  keeping in view this pump. The final approval was given by Ms.  Mayawati,  the  then CM on 6.9.95 and the funds  were  provided  from      emergency fund. The procurement of the portable pumps through the      Director of Industries would have taken a minimum of 90 days. The      CM therefore ordered on 13.10.95 that the procurement may be done      by the Fire Service Deptt. itself. This was apparently an irregular  decision.  There was no apparent urgency as the  pumps  were      required  for  the  months of April-June.  She  resigned  shortly      thereafter  and  her resignation was  accepted  around  17.10.95.      Action  on  her decision was stayed by the  orders  of  Principal      Secretary,  Home around 21.10.95. Thereafter, the Govt.  of  U.P.      approved that the procurement should be done only by the Director      of Industries. The Director of Industries floated tenders for 157      float  pumps. Initially, the condition was that bidder should  be      the manufacturer of the pump which was later on changed to  allow      the importer of the foreign brand also. The tender was opened  on      23.1.96  and the date for demonstration of the pump was fixed  as      29.1.96  knowing fully well that such pump were not  manufactured      in India and it may take sometime to bring them from abroad.  One      of  the tenders M/s. Kooverji Devshi & Co. requested  for  demonstration  on  3.2.96  which was acceded to, but  on  5.2.96,  the      Technical Committee rejected the bid of M/s. Kooverji Devshi  and      M/s New Age on the grounds that these firms were not enrolled  as      authorized  dealers of the foreign principal company. M/s.  Wadia      Body  Builders were rejected on the ground that  their  principal      supplier had cancelled the authority letter. The pump of M/s. New      Age  was also tested though the bid was rejected on  the  grounds      that  it  was not enrolled as authorized dealer  of  the  foreign      principal  company. Since the pump of M/s. Fire Challenger  alone      was  found  suitable the financial bid of this company  was  only      opened. The purchase of the portable pump was done therefore on a      single  price  bid. The rate quoted by M/s. Fire  Challenger  for      their  pump  of Waterous Company USA (High  Pressure  Model)  was     Rs.2.50 lacs per pump FOR denomination. 
 

     The financial committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of      Smt.  Sunanda  Prasad IAS, Director of Industries and  the  other      members  included Sh. Yashpal Singh, IG, Prakash Singh, DIG,  Sh.      O.P.  Shrivastava,  Joint Director. The company  in  its  meeting      dated  14.2.96 approved grant order for purchase of 157  floating      pumps  to M/s. Fire Challenger of Madras @ Rs.2.49 lac per  pump.      Since  the amount involved was more than one crore the  note  was      sent  to  the Govt. of UP for approval. Certain  objections  were      raised  by  the Spl. Secretary, Small Industries  that  the  pump      offered  by  M/s Kooverji Devshi & Co. was of  Waterous  Company,      Austria and therefore a comparison of their rates should be done,      that  the pump demonstrated by M/s Fire Challenger had  intake  -      inlet of 25 mm as against the stipulated 75 mm, that the price of      the pump was only $ 1100 and after inclusion of the Customs  duty      its price was Rs.72,000/- as against which it was proposed to  be      procured  for Rs. 2.49 lakhs. It was therefore decided to  return      the proposal back to the Director of Industries with instructions      to  open  the  commercial bid of M/s New Age  and  M/s.  Kooverji      Devshi  too with a view to ascertain correct price of  the  pump.      Accordingly, the proposed was sent back to the Director of Industries. 
 

     A complaint dt. 18.2.96 was received in the office of Sh. Yashpal      Singh,  IG on 23.2.96 which also mentioned that M/s.  Fire  Challenger had supplied 15 floating pumps to Madras Port Trust at the      cost   of   Rs.  1.20  lacs  against  their   tender   no.   EME/37/94/SKME(R&O) dt. 18.10.94 through its sister concern M/s.  Hi-Tech  which was also owned by Sh. Deva (Devnathan) of  M/s.  Fire      Challenger. Sh. Yashpal Singh who was also a Member of the Financial  Committee for approving the rates did not get  it  properly      verified. He also forwarded this complaint to Director of  Industries  and  the same was received by Sh.  O.P.Shrivastava,  Joint      Director on 1.3.96. Sh. Shrivastava overlooked the said complaint     and  did not get it placed on the note sheet and thereby  facilitated  M/s. Fire Challenger to get the said order @  Rs.2.49  lac      per  pump for the same item which was earlier supplied by  him  @      Rs.1.20  lacs. Instead of making proper enquiries  about  correct      price of the pump, the Director of Industries enclosed fax of the      supply order procured by M/s Fire Challenger from the Madras Port      Trust  which  had been furnished by M/s Fire  Challenger  to  Sh.      O.P.Shrivastava,  Joint Director of Industries (Purchase).  There      were  complaints that M/s Fire Challenger had supplied this  pump      to T.N. Govt. at Rs. 2.65 lakhs for which a vigilance enquiry was      in  progress. If the necessary proper and  independent  enquiries      were  conducted, it would have come to notice that the  pump  was      indeed  purchased  from the same Devanathan by  the  Madras  Port      Trust  at  the rate of Rs.1.2 lakhs through his  company  M/s  Hi      Tech. M/s Fire Challenger furnished bogus  address of its service      centres  which  addresses  were apparently  incomplete.  Lack  of      proper  enquiries by the said officials and due to  their  connivance with Sh. Devanathan, the rate of Rs.2.49 lakh per pump  was      got approved from the Govt. of UP. The payment of these pumps  so      supplied  were received by M/s. Fire Challenger @ Rs.  2.49  lacs      per pump. 
 

     Sh. Prakash Singh, DIG, Fire Services submitted a proposal  dated      26.5.97 to the Government for purchasing 143 floating pumps  (out      of the remaining 300). The Government granted Rs.4,65,00,000  for      the said purchase vide order dated 30.7.97. The representative of      M/s.  Fire  Challenger submitted letter to the DG  Fire  Services      informing  that  sanction for 143 pumps have  been  received  and      requested  to place order with his company as he was  willing  to      supply  on the old price, terms and conditions etc.  approved  by      the  DI  office.  Sh. Prakash Singh DIG  vide  his  letter  dated      14.8.97  requested  DI office Kanpur to  issue  Repeat  Allotment      Letter for 143 pumps in favour of M/s. Fire Challenger since  the      performance of the pumps were satisfactory and the  specification      had not changed. 
 

     The  Director  of  Industries Office under  the  Chairmanship  of      Pritam  Singh, Commissioner held a meeting of Financial  purchase      Committee on 6.8.97. As per rules the repeat Allotment Letter can      be issued only within the six months of the previous purchase and      only  for 50% of the quantity after ensuring that the price  have      not reduced. Despite the fact that more than 6 months had  passed      and the quantity to be purchased was more than 50% and the custom      duty had reduced by 3% the said committee approved for purchasing      103  pumps  i.e.24 pieces in excess to the 50%  of  the  previous      purchase,  without mentioning the reduction in the  custom  duty.      They  requested  the Govt. to approve the same waiving  the  said      basic condition of the Repeat Allotment Letter. They also authorized  the  Fire Department to purchase 40 pumps  under  variation      clause.  The  earlier  complaints that M/s  Fire  Challenger  had      supplied  15 floating pumps to Madras Port Trust at the  cost  of      Rs.1.20  lacs  through its sister concern M/s Hi-Tech  which  was      also  owned by Sh. Deva (Devanathan) of M/s Fire  Challenger  was      also  not taken cognizance at this stage again. The Govt.  of  UP      approved  the said proposal for purchasing 103 pumps waiving  the      condition  of  purchase during 6 months and 50% of  the  previous      order.  Smt. Manisha Pawar and Sh. J.N.Chamber, Secretary,  Small      Scale  Industries did not verify the facts and  hurriedly  recommended  for  allowing  said purchase which was  approved  by  Ms.      Mayawati,  the then CM on the same day i.e. 8.8.97.  Accordingly,      Repeat  Allotment letter for purchasing 143 floating  pumps  from      M/s. Fire Challenger was further granted. Sh. A.K.Singh, IG, Fire      Services  vide his letter dated 12.8.97 issued purchase order  to      M/s.  Fire Challenger for supplying 143 portable floating  pumps,      despite  the fact that the permission for drawing and  disbursing      Rs.4,65,00,000/-  for  this purchase was not received  till  that      time  from UP Police HQ Allahabad. M/s Fire Challenger  submitted      Luggage  receipt  No. 241845, 241848, 241851  all  dated  25.8.97      showing the transportation of imported floating pumps from Madras      to Lucknow by rail and delivered the pump on 28.8.97 at  Lucknow.      They  also requested to release 90% of the payment on  production      of  RR as per the condition of Repeat Allotment  Letter,  whereas      the fact is that the said was not RR. 
 

     The  then  DG Fire Services constituted Inspection  Committee  on      11.9.97  for  testing  individual float pumps. The  Dy.  DG  Fire      Services in his letter dated 16.9.97 mentioned several  shortcomings in the pump doubting the genuineness of it being from Waterous Company, USA, since plastic stickers of the company were only      found on the pump and the name was not engraved. The Director  of      Vigilance,  Anti  Corruption Madras had also  sent  some  letters      mentioning  that M/s. Fire Challenger had come to  their  adverse      notice  and  some departmental enquiry was pending  against  some      officers. The custom department of Madras had also informed  that      the cost of the imported pump was Rs.46,743/- and the custom duty      was Rs.10,283/- showing that the orders were placed at exorbitant      rates.  Sh.  Prakash  Singh, the then DIG put  up  a  note  dated      17.9.97  and recommended for making payment  of  Rs.1,01,10,396/-      against  the  purchase of 40 pumps without  mentioning  the  said      deficiencies  as  were already pointed out. The IG  also  counter      signed  the  note and it was finally approved by the then  DG  of      Fire Services and accordingly payment of said amount was made  to      M/s. Fire Challenger despite the serious objections.  Ms.Mayawati      then  CM further wrote a letter dt.19.9.97 for making payment  of      the  remaining 103 pumps and also instructed for  taking  serious      action  against  errant officials. By the time, the then  DG  was      hospitalized in ICU and payment could not be made. The payment is      still  pending. Sh. Devanathan Prop. of M/s. Fire  Challenger  is      President of the Bahujan Samaj Party, Tamil Nadu and had  political connections with Ms. Mayawati former Chief Minister of  Uttar      Pradesh. 
 

     It  is further alleged that Sh. Dalip Ganga Prasad  Karsolia  had      demanded a bribe of Rs.10 lacs from M/s. Fire Challenger and also      instructed the company to sponsor the sports activity of his  son      costing Rs.1 lakh per annum. 
 

     The above acts disclose that Ms. Mayawati, former Chief  Minister      of  U.P.,  Sh. Pritam Singh, former Director of  Industries,  Sh.      J.N.Chamber formerly Secretary to the Govt. of U.P. Small  Industries and Export Promotion Department, Smt. Manisha Pawar formerly  Joint Secretary, Small Industries Deptt., Sh. Yashpal  Singh,      formerly IG of fire Services, Sh. Prakash Singh, formerly DIG  in      Fire Services, Sh. Daleep Ganga Prasad Karsolia, Dy. Director  of      Fire Services, Lucknow, Sh.O.P. Shrivastava, former Joint  Director  (Purchase),  and others while working as  such  in  criminal      conspiracy with each other and with Sh. Devanathan, Prop. of M/s.      Fire Challenger, Madras and M/s. Fire Challenger, Madras  dishonestly and fraudulently and by abuse of their official position as      public  servant or otherwise and by corrupt and illegal means  or      without  any  public  interest obtained  pecuniary  advantage  to      themselves and or to Sh. Devanathan, Prop. of M/s. Fire Challenger, Madras and M/s. Fire Challenger, Madras and cheated the Govt.      of  UP to the tune of Rs.2,44,13,000/- by purchasing float  pumps      at  exorbitant rates and thereby committed  criminal  misconduct.      Hence  a  case U/s 120B r/w 420 IPC and 13(2)  r/w  13(1)(d)  of      Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is registered against them and      entrusted to Sh.R.Singh, DSP, ACU-IV, CBI for investigation. 
                                    Sd/-Dr.R.K.Garg
                                   SUPDT.OF POLICE
                                   CBI SPE ACU (V)N.D."

 

27. Comparison of annexure P-2 and the copy of the F.I.R. filed by the respondent on record thus suggests material and substantial difference. The petitioner on one hand alleged that it was registration of a case without application of mind, without verification and without her involvement anywhere; whereas F.I.R. ex-facie suggest that during verification of the source information specific involvement of the petitioner as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh is disclosed. Source information is contained in the letter dated 20.10.1997. Verification was ordered on 13.11.1997. Dr.R.K.Garg, Supdt. of Police, C.B.I., S.P.E, ACU(V) New Delhi on 18.3.1998 registered the F.I.R. According to the petitioner, the information was received on 18.3.1998 and F.I.R. was also registered on the same day.

28. The above would lead us to infer that the petitioner did try to impress upon the Court that it was a case of political vendetta merely to tarnish her image politically or to compel her to support the confidence motion of B.J.P. Government in the Centre. She in fact suggested that the facts as disclosed in the F.I.R. registered nowhere mentioned her roll or her involvement in the commission of the offence or in the transaction; whereas the F.I.R. on the face of it in no uncertain terms stated that Shri Devanathan, Prop. of M/s.Fire Challenger, the President of B.S.P. Tamil Nadu, had political connections with the petitioner. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner even in the rejoinder. The F.I.R. further states that the petitioner, as Chief Minister, has written a letter on 19.9.1997 for making payment of remaining 103 pumps and had also instructed for taking serious action against the errant officials. By that time the Director General was hospitalised in I.C.U., therefore, the payment could not be made. It may be noted at this stage that according to the petitioner for this amount the supplier invoked the arbitration clause and obtained award in his favour from the arbitrator.

29. The F.I.R. states that as per the rules a repeat allotment letter could be issued only within a period of six months of the previous purchase and that also for 50% of the quantity after ensuring that prices have not reduced. Despite the fact that more than six months had lapsed and the quantity was more than 50% and customs duty had been reduced by 3%, the Committee approved purchase of 103 pumps, namely, 24 pumps in excess of 50% of the previous purchase. Fire Department was separately authorized to purchase 40 pumps. Earlier complaints, which had been received when the supplier,namely, M/s.Fire Challenger had supplied 15 floating pumps to Madras Port Trust at the cost of Rs.1.20 lakhs through its sister concern, which was also owned by Shri Devanathan, were not taken cognizance of at this stage. This proposal was approved by the petitioner on 8.8.1997, which led to the issuance of repeat order for 143 pumps.

30. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that on receipt of 40 pumps, the Directorate General Fire Services constituted Inspection Committee on 11.9.1997. Dy.Director Fire Services in his letter dated 16.9.1997 pointed out numerous shortcomings in the pumps and also doubting the genuineness of the Waterous Company, U.S.A. In the meanwhile, Director (Vigilance) Anti Corruption, Madras had also sent a letter pointing out that M/s.Fire Challenger had come to their adverse notice and that departmental enquiry was pending against some officers. Customs Department, Madras had also informed that cost of the imported pump was Rs.48,743/- on which customs duty was Rs.10,283/-, but the order was placed at exorbitant rate. Without ascertaining the correct price payment of Rs.1,01,10,396/- at Rs.2.49 lakhs per pump.

31. The above allegations do not form part of annexure-P.2. The legitimate inference thus, which can be drawn is that there is deliberate suppression of material facts with a view to obtain favourable orders. As a matter of facts, the averments made in the petition and the contents of annexure-P.2 definitely influenced us in passing the first interim order and for this reason alone, we are of the view that the petitioner would be disentitled to get relief in this petition from this Court.

32. On the scope of interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the quashing of the proceedings at a stage interior to trial, the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma & another, 1992 Supp.(1) S.C.C. 222, held that the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect commission of a cognisable offence. In a proper case an aggrieved person can always seek remedy by invoking powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. One of the grounds would be when the Court could be convinced that power of investigation has been exercised by a police office malafide. In that event mandamus can be issued restraining the investigator to exercise his legal powers but a Court should be quite loath to interfere at the stage of investigation unless extra-ordinary case of gross abuse of the power by those in charge of the investigation is made out. It was further held that Investigating Officer is the arm of law and plays pivotal role in dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. Police investigation is, therefore, the foundation stone on which whole edifice of criminal law rests. The duty of investigation officer, therefore, is to ascertain facts to extract truth from half truth or grabbled version connecting the chain of events. Investigation is a tedious process. Investigation Officer may have to obtain information from sources disclosed or undisclosed and there is no such procedure to conduct investigation to connect every step in the chain of prosecution case by collecting evidence except to the extent expressly prohibited by Criminal Procedure Code or Evidence Act or Constitution. The function of the judiciary in the course of investigation by the police should be complementary and full freedom should be accorded to the investigator to collect the evidence connecting the chain of events leading to discovery of truth. Investigation Officer would conduct in-depth investigation to discover truth. At this stage when investigation is in progress, High Court should not interfere, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Appreciation of evidence would be function of the criminal courts.

33. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , considering the scope of interference by the Court in exercise of its extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, certain category of cases were mentioned by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court said that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of cases wherein power should be exercised. The broad categories of cases in which interference would be made were stated as under:-

     "1.  Where  the allegations made in the first information  report      or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value  and      accepted  in  their entirety do not prima  facie  constitute  any      offence or make out a case against the accused. 
 

     2.   Where  the allegations in the first information  report  and      other  materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose  a      cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officer      under  Section  156(1)  of the Code except under an  order  of  a      Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 
 

     3.   Where  the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R.  or 
     complaint  and the evidence collected in support of the  same  do 
     not  disclose the commission of any offence and make out  a  case 
     against the accused. 
 

     4.   Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable  offence  but constitute only a non-cognizable  offence,  no      investigation  is permitted by a police officer without an  order      of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 
 

     5.   Where  the allegations made in the FIR or complaint  are  so      absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent      person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is  sufficient      ground for proceeding against the accused. 
 

     6.   Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of  the      provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and  continuance      of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision  in      the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress  for      the grievance of the aggrieved party. 
 

     7.   Where  a  criminal proceeding is  manifestly  attended  with      malafide  and/or where the proceeding is  maliciously  instituted      with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and      with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 

 

34.  Needless  to add that there are no allegation of malafide against  the respondent. General and vague allegations have been made without impleading anyone  as party to the petition, at whose behest, it is alleged  that  the act  of  registration  of F.I.R. was performed by the  respondent.  In  the absence of any specific allegation of malafide, it will not be  permissible for this Court to go into those aspects especially when it has been noticed that the petitioner deliberately did not produce true copy of F.I.R. 
 

35.   In the light of the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) it is to be seen that whether the allegations as made in the F.I.R. are  so absurd  and inherently improbable on the basis of which no  prudent  person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient case for proceeding  against the accused. Or is it a case where the uncontroverted  allegations  made in the FIR or the material collected till registration  thereof do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioner. 
 

36. We need not repeat the allegations, as have been made in the F.I.R. The allegations are specific and the roll assigned to the petitioner is definite that she did approve the proposal for a repeat order in favour of a person, who has political connection with her being the President of B.S.P. Tamil Nadu Unit. There were already complaints against the performance of the pumps. Repeat order for the quantity ordered could not have been placed under the rules. She also ensured that full payment is made to the supplier during her tenure as Chief Minister. Facts were not got properly verified regarding the true price of the pumps on the date of placing the repeat order, despite the fact that complaints had been received earlier. Irrespective of the fact that there has been approval during the Governor's regime of the rates, the F.I.R. do allege that Shri O.P.Sirivastava, the Joint Director over looked the complaints, did not get the same placed on the note sheet thereby facilitated the supplier to procure an order at the rate of Rs.2.49 lakhs per pump for the same item, which earlier had been supplied by him at the rate of Rs.1.20 lakhs to Madras Port Trust. It was during the petitioner's regime as Chief Minister that final approval was given for purchase of pumps on 6.9.1995. It was an irregular decision. There were no urgency for the purchase of pumps at that time but funds were also arranged from emergency funds. Before the deal could be finalized, she resigned. Action on her decision was stayed. Again when she came in power repeat order was placed overlooking the rules and without making proper enquiry. It was during her regime that on 26.5.1997 that Deputy Director General Fire Services made a proposal for purchase of 143 floating pumps on which a meeting of Finance Purchase Committee was held on 6.8.1997. After completion of some of the formalities within a period of two days,the petitioner as Chief Minister approved the proposal. Inspector General Fire Services through his letter dated 12.8.1997 placed purchase, order on M/s.Fire Challenger for supplying 143 portable pumps despite the fact that permission for drawing Rs.4.65 crores for this purchase was not received till that time from U.P. Police Headquarter. Receipt dated 25.8.1997 was produced by the purchaser showing the transportation of imported floating pumps from Madras to Lucknow. He requested for release of 90% payment on production of these receipts. Though payment had to be made on production of R.R. and the receipts produced were not R.R. In the mean-while, there has been Inspection Committee constituted, which submitted its report. Instead of putting up a note on such complaints, a note was put up for payment of Rs.1,01,10,396/-. The petitioner on 19.9.1997 wrote a letter for making payment of the pumps and also instructed for taking action against the errant officials.

37. In case the allegations aforementioned do not constitute an offence requiring investigation, we fail to understand that what other allegations would constitute prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, for the purposes of registration of the case. The allegations read as a whole do prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The allegations made and the material so far collected in case would remain uncontroverted, on the face of it make out a case against the petitioner. We need not deal elaborately on these aspects lest any observations made at this stage might prejudice either party later on or affect fair investigation of the case. Highlighted portions of F.I.R. alone is answer sufficient to the petitioner allegation made in her petition that nothing is disclosed against her in the F.I.R. To the contrary F.I.R. does specifically point out her role.

38. The course adopted by the respondent in carrying out verification on the source information dated 20.10.1997 and withholding of registration of F.I.R. till verification, was a step in right direction. In V.M.Singh Vs. State 1998 (1) C.C.Cases 283, Division Bench of this Court relying upon State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi P.Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras, Bhajan Lal's case (supra); Kuldip Singh Vs. State (1994) CCR 1005 and Madhuresh Vs C.B.I. and others 66(1997) D.L.T. 805 observed that the approach of starting preliminary investigation before registration of a case is not prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Code and it would be open for a police office to make preliminary inquiry before registration of an offence and before making a full scale investigation into it. It was also observed that there must be some suitable preliminary investigation as to the allegation by a responsible officer before a public servant is publicly charged with an act of dishonesty, otherwise such a report would do incalculable harm not only to the office in particular but to the department he belonged to, if an F.I.R. is straightaway registered. Needless to add that in the instant case result of the preliminary verification into the source information affirmed the role of each accused including the petitioner and it resulted in registration of F.I.R.

39. For the submission that it was a case of civil nature for which award had already been made by the arbitrator, the commencement of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the power, reliance was placed on the decision in M/s.Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another Vs. Union of India and others Janak Raj Vs.The State of Punjab Cr.L.R. (Punjab & Haryana) 236; Harbhagwan Dass Vs. The State of Punjab 1983(2) Recent Cr.Reports 156; Major Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 1986 Cr.L.J.303; Hakim Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1987 (1) All India Cr.L.J.321; Mohan Lal alias Mohan Chand Vs. The State of Punjab 1989 (2) All India Criminal Law Journal 825; S.K. Mehta Vs. The State 1993(1) Crimes 958; Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta and Trilok Singh and others Vs.Satya Deo Tripathi . It was urged that FIR deserves to be quashed in view of the award having been made in favour of the supplier for the unpaid price and the remedy of respondent, if any, would be to file appeal/objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

40. At the very out set, it may be observed that it is not a magic formulae that as and when any civil proceedings with respect to a transaction or a part thereof are commenced or have culminated in a decree or award that criminal proceedings would straightaway or mechanically bad to the quashing of F.I.R. What is essential, which deserved to be taken note of would be that whether the entire dispute raised is of a civil nature and there is no criminality attached therein. In addition the nature and scope of the civil proceedings as also the nature and scope of criminal action would be important and relevant factors, to be taken into consideration.

41. According to the petitioner, the supplier invoked the arbitration clause and sent a notice to the State through Director concerned intimating the nomination of his arbitrator through letter dated 12.11.1997, stating to have been acknowledged by the Director by 18.11.1997. As there was no response or nomination of its arbitrator by the Director on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is stated that the arbitrator appointed by the supplier became the sole arbitrator. The Director of Industries was also informed by the arbitrator through notice dated 26.2.1998 about the commencement of hearing on the reference made by the supplier. Notice is stated to have been received on 2.3.1998. State of Uttar Pradesh is stated to have been proceeded ex parte on 16.3.1998. The arbitrator is stated to have proceeded to make his ex parte award on 26.3.1998. Apparently the award is ex parte without any contest. We are not concerned in these proceedings about the circumstances in which the State of Uttar Pradesh was proceeded against ex parte. The State of Uttar Pradesh is stated to have challenged the legality and validity of the award. The said proceedings are stated to be pending. Ex-facie the award of the arbitrator nowhere suggests that the facts on which FIR is registered, which shows the commission of a cognisable offences, that the same were the subject matter of arbitration proceedings. As such the making and publishing of the ex parte award by the arbitrator alone will not be a ground to quash the FIR. Investigation on the FIR cannot be scuttled in the manner in which it is suggested on behalf of the petitioner. For these reasons, the decisions cited at the bar cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.

42. Irrespective of the fact that the respondent deliberately proceeded against the Dalit Members of the Financial Purchase Committee and left out the upper caste members was not a ground taken in the petition, we are of the view that on this score also there is no scope for quashing the F.I.R. A bare reading of the F.I.R. suggests that there is attribute ability of criminal act on the part of the accused named therein and not against the others. The submission otherwise is not factually correct. One of the members of the Financial Purchase Committee, named as an accused, is Shri Dalip Ganga Persad, Deputy Director of Fire Services, Lucknow. He is not a Dalit. Yet he has been named as an accused. It is because of the specific criminal act attributed to him of having demanded bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- from the supplier, in addition to sponsoring the sports activities of his son costing Rs.1,00,000/- per annum.

43. In the circumstances aforementioned, we do not find any ground having been made out to quash the F.I.R. The petition accordingly is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Interim order stands vacated.

44. As the interim order has remained in force till date, it is directed that the same will remain in operation for a further period of 10 days from today to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders from a competent court of law in that behalf.