Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union Of India And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 4762 Del

$~19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(C) 6326/2016
        ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Petitioner in person.

                      Versus
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                   ..... Respondents
                  Through : Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with
                            Mr.Srivats Kaushal, Advocate for
                            UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

                           ORDER

22.07.2016

1. The present writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent to provide effective, impartial, independent and strong Lokayukta Bill as well as to expedite the implementation of United Nations Convention Against Corruption and Sense of the House Resolution, 2011.

2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the United National General Assembly adopted United Nations Convention Against Corruption on 31.10.2003 and was signed by 178 countries including India but the Government of India did not ratify the said convention which came into force on 14.12.2005; after huge public pressure, the Government of India ratified the said Convention on 12.05.2011 and the Parliament on 27.08.2011 unanimously adopted the United Nations Convention. The grievance of the petitioner is that no further steps have been taken so far and

the Convention has not yet been implemented.

3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

4. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had submitted a written representation to the Ministry of Law and Justice on 20.06.2016 for implementation of an effective, impartial, independent and strong Lokayukta in States. Having regard to the fact that the said representation is yet to be considered, we consider it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to look into the contents of the writ petition and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within three months from today. Such order shall be communicated to the petitioner.

5. The Respondent No. 1 is further directed to file the compliance of this order within the stipulated period.

6. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh writ petition in case the issues raised in this petition are not fully resolved.

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JULY 22, 2016 gr