Holding

The Supreme Court held that the relief sought was already being acted upon by the competent authorities and therefore allowed the investigating agencies additional time, without interfering with the merits of the case.

Summary

Jagdish Narain Shukla filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking the implementation of a Lokayukta report that alleged corruption by former minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui and former MLC Husna Siddiqui, claiming they had purchased assets at undervalued prices using income from unknown sources. The Lokayukta, under Section 12(3) of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up‑Lokayuktas Act, 1975, recommended that a central investigating agency conduct a detailed probe. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Lokayukta’s findings were not final and that the statutory mechanisms for enforcement were sufficient. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether it could compel the competent authority to act on the Lokayukta’s recommendations while investigations were already underway by the State Vigilance Establishment, Enforcement Directorate, and CBI. The Court observed that the agencies had indeed taken up the investigations, had collected material, and were seeking additional time; consequently, it granted them a further six‑month period to complete the enquiries and declined to interfere with the merits. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to direct implementation of Lokayukta recommendations when investigations are pending.
Whether a writ petition for enforcement of Lokayukta recommendations is maintainable under Article 226.
The appropriateness of granting additional time to law‑enforcement agencies to complete investigations.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2)
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(e), s. 13(2)
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
U.P. Lokayukta and Up‑Lokayuktas Act, 1975s. 12(3)

Subjects

LokayuktaCorruptionPublic servantsInvestigationWrit petitionImplementation of recommendationsSupreme CourtArticle 226Article 136Prevention of Corruption ActEnforcement DirectorateVigilanceUttar Pradesh

Judgment

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 360

A JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA
v.
STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 9442 of2016)
B SEPTEMBER 26, 20 I 6
(T.S.THAKUR, CJI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Lokayuktas:
U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 - s.12(3) -
c Allegations against respondents-public servants, that they had
purchased assets through income earned from unknown sources -
Lokayukta recommended investigation through investigating
agencies - Appellant filed writ petition and pleaded for
implementation of the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta -
Writ Petition dismissed - On appeal, held: Law enforcement agencies
D
have moved into action and have collected information and material
including the representations and affidavits received in course of
the said investigation/enquiry - On request of the law enforcing
agencies, more time granted to them to complete investigation/
enquiries in relation to the acts of commission and omission of
E respondents-public servants - Constitution of India - Art. 136 -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(1)(e) rlw. s.13(2) -
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.173(2).
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
F HELD: 1. The relief in the writ petition filed before High
Court was limited to directing the Competent Authority to act_
upon the recommendations made by the Lokayukta. That relief
has worked out in view of the direction issued by the Competent
Authority to investigate/enquire into the factual matrix noticed
G in Lokayukta's report. Further, the law enforcement agencies
have moved into action and have collected information and
material including with reference to the representations and
affidavits received in the course of the said investigation/enquiry.
On the request of the law enforcement agencies, some more time
given to them to complete the investigation/enquiries in relation
H
360
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 361

to the acts of commission and omission of respondent nos.5 and A
6 or any other person(s) privy thereto. (ParalS) [373-D-E)
2.In the instant case, considering the fact that the law
enforcement agencies are on their job for quite sometime, it is
hoped that they would complete the investigation/enquiry at the
earliest and not later than six months from today and take the B
same to its logical end in accordance with law. [Para 16) (373-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9442
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2012 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Misc. Bench c
No. 5744 of2012.
M. C. Dhingra, Ms. Gauri Neo Rampa!, Advs. for the Appellant.
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Rakesh Kr. Khanna, Sr. Adv., P. K. Mullick,
Ritesh Kumar, Rajat Nair, Manoj Singh, Rajat M., B. K. Prasad, Mukesh D
Kumar Maroria, Rajeev Singh, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Abhishek Kumar
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the decision of the Division Bench of E
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dated l 61h July,
2012 in Writ Petition No.5744 of2012.
3. The appellant had filed writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation praying for
implementation of the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta Uttar F
Pradesh, dated 22°d February, 2012. i::ollowing reliefs were prayed in
the said writ petition:
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon 'ble Court
may kindly be pleased, in the interest ofjustice, to
G
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing the Opposite Parties Nos. I, 2 and 3 to implement
the recommendations/report of the Opposite Parties No.4 by
getting the issue enquired by the opposite party Nos. 7 and 8.
iI) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.

A directing the Opposite Parties No. 7 and 8 to carry out an
enquiry into the misdeeds of the Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and
6, in terms of the recommendation of the Opposite Party No.4.
iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as may be deem fit
and proper by this Hon'ble Court for givingjust, proper and
B effective relief to the petitioner.
iv) Award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.
4. The Lokayukta had submitted the said report under the
Provisions of Section 12 (3) of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas
Act, 1975 to the Competent Authority for taking necessary action. The
c report was the outcome ofthe complaint made by one Shri Jagdish Narain
Shukla against Smt. Husna Siddiqui, Member of Legislative Council and
Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Cabinet Minister in U.P., respondent
no.6 and 5 respectively. After due enquiry the Lokayukta arrived at the
following conclusion as noted in the aforesaid report:
D "On the basis of the prima facie evidences collected in the
course of investigation, I reach the conclusion that the delinquent
public servants had purchased land worth Rs.16,39,99,227/-(as
per the market value) for a meager price of Rs.46,32,600/- for
their Private Society. They had also purchased agriculture land
E worth Rs. One crore situated in Tindwari, Dist. Banda for a meager
price ofRs.4,50,000/-. They purchased Bungalow no.B-3, Timaiya
Road, Cantonment, Lucknow worth crores of rupees for just
Rs.50,00,000/-. They also purchased land worth Rs.3,60,00,000/-
_in village Ladakapurwa, Dist. Banda for a meager price of
Rs.5,50,000/- by way of involving name of Smt. Upma Gupta,
F Smt. Akrami Begum and Smt. Arshi Siddiqui. The Delinquent
public servant also purchased 1.2370 hectare land in the name of
his son SriAfz.al Siddiqui in district Jyotibaphule Nagar for setting
up an industry A.Q. Frozen Food Pvt. Ltd. and investigation to
find out the exact cost of the land and the sources of income for
G purchase the land is still in progress. It seems that the delinquent
public servants have purchased all the aforementioned assets
through their income which they earned from unknown sources
because as per the income tax return of both the delinquents,
their taxable income for the last financial years comes to.
Rs.1,93,85, 196/-.
H
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 363
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

69. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered A
view that this task should be entrusted to a specialized investigating
agency with the following tasks:
1. The agency should investigate the correctness/genuineness of
the donations/funds given by persons (whose naines are indicated
in the enclosed list provided by the delinquents) by cheque, by B
demand drafts and by cash to the Registered Society, namely,
Q.F. Shikshan Sansthan, 49, Shyam Nagar (Khurram Nagar)
Lucknow and also to investigate the sources of income of these
individuals.
2. Q. F. Shikshan Sansthan, 49, Shyam Nagar (khurram Nagar) c
Lucknow had acquired immovable property in Tehsil Fatehpur,
Dist. Bararanki through sale deeds. The agency should make inquiry
about the persons who sold land admeasuring 57 Bigha 18 Biswa
3 Biswansi to Smt. Husna Siddiqui, Secretary, Q. F. Shikshan
Sansthan.
D
3. All sale deeds of Village Nindora, Tehsil Fatehpur, Dist.
Barabanki executed during the last five years should be examined
in order to ascertain the fact as to who had sold their lands in
village Nindora and what was the actual sale considerations
involved in these transactions and from where the funds had come
to these individuals. E

4. 2.00 Hectare land in Gata no.3235 in village LadkapurWa,
Pargana-Tehsil-Dist. Banda was purchased by Smt. Akrami
Begum wife of Sri Jamiruddin Siddiqui, Smt. Arshi Siddiqui,
daughter-in-law of Sri Jamiruddin Siddiqui, Smt. Arshi Siddiqui,
daughter-in-law of Sri Jamiruddin Siddiqui and Smt. Upma Gupta F
wife of Sri Krishna Chandra Gupta, an Engineer in Nirman Nigam
in the year 2008. The investigating agency should make inquiries
to find out the actual sale consideration involved in the aforesaid
transaction and what was the source of income for payment of
the said cost.
G
5. Investigation should be conducted to find out the source of
income which was used for buying the entire land in village
Bachhrau, Tehsil Dhanaura, Dist. Jyotibaphule Nagar for setting
upA.Q. Frozen Food Private Limited and raising building, etc. for
the unit. It is also to be investigated as to who all have invested
H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.

A their money in the land and building of the Unit and what is their
source of income.
70. In view of the foregoing analysis, I recommend that:-
!. The task ·of conducting investigation on the
aforementioned points should be entrusted to a Central Investigating
B Agency viz. Central Bureau of Investigation or the Enforcement
Directorate and further action be taken in accordance with the
result of the investigation.
2. Compliance report may be made available within one
month.
c Sd/- illegible
(Justice N.K. Mehrotra)
Lok Ayukt, U.P.
On the basis of the above conclusions, the Lokayukta made following
recommendations:
D
70. In view of the foregoing analysis, I recommend that:-
!. The task of conducting investigation on the
aforementioned points should be entrusted to a Central Investigating
Agency viz. Central Bureau oflnvestigation or the Enforcement
Directorate and further action be taken in accordance with the
E
result of the investigation.
2. Compliance report may be made available within one
month.
Sd/- illegible
F (Justice N.K. Mehrotra)
Lok Ayukt, U.P.
5. The appellant verily believed that the Competent Authority was
not taking any steps to comply with the said recommendations of the
Lokayukta, for which, filed Writ Petition No.5744 of2012 on J2'h July,
2012 for the reliefs as reproduced above.
G
6. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held that the
opinion of the Lokayukta in the report cannot be construed to be final or
conclusive as it was a fact finding enquiry and a detailed enquiry is yet
to be made after affording opportunity of hearing to the person against
whom complaint is made. It further observed that the High Court ought
H
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 365
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

not to entertain petition for implementation of recommendations/orders A
of the Lokayukta - as there is sufficient provision under the Act itself to
get the same implemented. The Court also opined that there was no
element of public interest in the grievances made by the appellant. On
that finding the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine
on J6th July, 20 I2.
B
7. This decision has been challenged in trn: present petition filed
under Article 136 of the Constitutionpflndia. This Court issued notice
to the respondents including the State Authorities. The respondent nos.
I to 3 caused to file affidavit ofYatindra Kumar, Under Secretary in the
Vigilance Department of the State Government on 9'h October, 2014.
Besides raising preliminary objection, it has been mentioned in this affidavit c
that the Competent Authority has already taken a decision to enquire
into the aspects noted in the report of the Lokayukta through the State
Vigilance Establishment by way of an open vigilance enquiry, vide
Government Order dated IO'h July, 2013.
8. The respondent no.8 Directorate of Enforcement caused to D
file affidavit ofGurinder Singh Chawla, Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Government
of India, New Delhi dated 41hMarch, 20 I 5, stating that the Director of
Enforcement has been mandated to investigate contraventions relating
to Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and offences of money E
laundering under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Further,
it had no authority whatsoever, to cause investigation in respect of
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which ought to
be investigated by the appropriate enforcement agency, namely, Central
Bureau oflnvestigatiOn or by State police. This affidavit also mentions
that FIR No.385of2013 dated 6th July, 2013 registered at Police Station F
Kotwali Nagar, Banda, U.P., for offences punishable under Section 13
(I) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of'£orruption Act,
1988 against respondent,Qo.5 and an ECIR/LKZ0/03/2014 has been
registered Lucknow Zonal Office for offence o(money laundering under
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The affidavit also G
mentions that an action of provisional attachment of proceeds of crime
or property involved in money laundering shall be undertaken upon filing
ofa police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
. 1973, by the law enforcement agency. The other action taken for collection
of Bank statements, income tax returns and property details of..respondent
H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 5 S.C.R.

A no.5 and his relatives by the respective law enforcement agency has
been requisitioned and the document so received are being scrutinized.
9. Respondent no.7 C.B.l. has caused to file affidavit of Rajiv
Kumar, Deputy S.P., CBI,ACB, Lucknow, in February, 2014. It is stated
in this affidavit there is full-fledged State Vigilance Department under
B the State Government to take follow up action .-on the basis of
recommendations made by the Lokayukta. Moreover, factual matrix of
the present case does not involve any complexity or interstate ramification
which may require a specialized inveStigation by the C.B.l., to be treated
as rare and exceptional case.

c I 0. The respondent no.6 has filed reply affidavit on 23rd July, 2015,
to oppose this appeal. In that reply affidavit, it is stated that on a complaint
by one Mr. Ashish Sagar a vigilance investigation has been commenced
in respect of which FIR No.385/2013 has been registered and that she
has participated and fully cooperated in the said investigation. It is prayed
by the said respondent that the appeal does not merit interference. The
D respondent no.5 has also filed an affidavit on same lines as respondent
no.6 dated 23rd July, 2015.
11. When this matter was heard on 22nd July, 2016 this Court
passed the following order:

E "Heard.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel for the 2
respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh, submits that taking
cognizance of the report submitted by the Lokayukta, the State
Government had referred the matter for investigation by the
·State Vigilance establishment on 10th July, 2013. The progress
F made in that regard is however not immediately known to him.
He seeks time to take instructions if any action has been taken
pursuant to the reference made by the Government to the
Vigilance establishment. Our attention is also drawn to the
affidavit filed by respondent no.5, para (7) whereof it is inter
G alia mentioned that FIR No.38512013 dated 6th July, 2013
has been registered at the Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Banda,
U.P., by the Vigilance establishment on the complaint of one-
Mr. Ashish Sagar. It is submitted that the a/legations contained
in the said complaint are similar to the ones made in the report
submitted by the Lokayukta: Mr. Mehrotra does not have any
H
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 367
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

instruction as to the progress made in connection with the A
said FIR also. He may, therefore, file a status report not only
in regard to the reference made by the State Government to
the Vigilance establishment, pursuant to the Lokayukta report,
but also as regards the progress made in FIR No.38512013 by
the police station concerned. Mr. Mehrotra also to take
B
instruction whether any FIR has been registered against
respondents No.5 and 6 in any other police station and if so
the progress made in those F/Rs. Jn addition, Mr. Mehrotra
will take instruction and state whether the State Government
proposes to make a reference to the 3 enforcement directorate
as recommended by the Lokayukta in his report, in case such c
a reference is not already made. Mr. P.K. Mullick, learned
counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, submits that
Enforcement Directorate has registered ECIR on the basis of
FIR No.38512013 but no enquiry has been instituted nor any
reference made to the Enforcement Directorate by the State
D
Government pursuant to the report of the Lokayukta. Mr.
Mehrotra shall do the needful within two weeks from today.
Post after two weeks.
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Under Secretary in the
Vigilance Department at Lucknow Sri Yatindra Kumar, has filed affidavit
sworn on 9•h August, 2016, disclosing the progress of the respective E
case initiated against respondent nos.5 and 6. The said affidavit reads
thus:
"3. That, in re5pectful compliance of the said order dated
22.07.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the status of various
proceedings against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the present F
petition, is as under:
I. Progress regarding reference to the State Vigilance
EstJ(hlishment
•
4. That, in this regard it is stated that a complaint was filed
before the Lokayukta Establishment Uttar Pradesh by Sri G
Jagdish Narain Shukla of Lucknow against Smt. Husna
Siddiqui, Member of U.P. Legislative Council and Sri
Naseemuddin Siddiqui, ex-Cabinet Minister of Uttar Pradesh,
in respect of which ajier conducting an enquiry, the Hon 'ble
Lokayukta vide letter dated 22.02.2012, submitted Report
H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.

A no.03-2012 to the Competent Authority, Government of UP.
After due consideration of the said report and
recommendations of the Hon 'hie Lokayukta, vide order dated
10.07.2013, it was directed by the State Government that open
enquiry by conducted against the said Smt. Husna Siddiqui
B and Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui by the U.P. Vigilance
Establishment, following the said report by the Hon 'hie
Lokayukta.
In compliance with the said order dated 10.07.2013 by
the State Government, whereby open enquiry was directed to
be conducted, the Vigilance Establishment completed the
c enquiry and report was submitted to the State Government
vide letter dated 29.07.2015.
In the meanwhile, various representations/affidavits
were submitted to the State Government by Smt. Husna
Siddiqui and her family members in respect of said open
D enquiry on 04.08.2015, 6.8.2015, 17.8.2015, 18.8.2015,
19.8.2015, 20.8.2015, 21.8.2015, 28.8.2015, 4.9.2015,
10.9.2015 and 14.9.2015, wherein several important issues
were sought to be raised in relation to the open enquiry.
The open enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance
E Establishment, and the representations/affidavits by Smt.
Husna Siddiqui and her relations, were comprehensively
considered by the State Government, and after comprehensive
consideration, after taking cognizance of all the facts
mentioned in the aforesaid representations/affidavits in
relation to the open enquiry conducted by the Vigilance
F Establishment, it was found justifiable to get a factual report
in regard thereto, after carefully examining/scrutinizing the
documems enclosed with the said representations/affidavits.
In this view of the matter as aforestated, the State Government
vide D. 0. letter no. VIP/36139-4-15-50H (2)12013 dated
G 26.2.2016, has directed the Vigilance Establishment to submit
a factual report in regard thereto after enquiring into the
matter in detail.
Current status oft/1e enquiry
5. That, it has been informed by the U.P. Vigilance
Establishment that for the purpose of verification of documents
H
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 369
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

in the enquiry, the revenue records in the districts of Lucknow, A
Barabanki, Banda and Jyotiba Phule Nagar and records of
related offices as well as records of different banks, and
verification/examination of the concerned bank accounts, has
to be done. Moreover, the 11 representations and 8 affidavits
(totaling 55 pages) submitted by Smt. Husna Siddiqui and
B
members of her family, as well as documents enclosed with
the said representations (approx. 1068 pages), have to be
verified. Additionally, enquiry/statements of persons giving
money and other persons, has to be done, owing to which the
enquiry is taking time. At the present time, supplementary
enquiry is in progress, which shall be completed at the earliest c
and report submitted to the State Government.
IL Progress in RLR. no. 385113 dt. 6.7.2013 at P.S. Kotwali,
Banda
6. Jn regard to above, the factual position is that a complaint
was filed against Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former Minister, D
Government of U.P. by Sri Ashish Sagar Dixit, District Banda,
before the Lokayukta Establishment, Uttar Pradesh. Following
the same, the Hon 'hie Lokayukta after conducting his enquiry.
submitted Report no.05-2012 vide letter dated 24.8.2012 to
the Competent Authority of the U.P. Government. E
After due consideration of the said report dated
24.8.2012 of the Hon 'hie Lokayukta, the State Government
vide order dated 4.10.2012 directed the U.P. Vigilance
Establishment to conduct open enquiry against Sri
Naseemuddin Siddiqui, in regard to recommendation no. I of F
the report of the Hon 'hie Lokayukta.
In compliance with the State Governments order dated
4.10.2012 directing an open enquiry, the Vigilance
Establishment has completed the said open enquiry and its
report was submitted to the State Government vide letter dated
G
29.4.2013. On account of the fact that the expenditure was
found more than income in the open enquiry, hence it was
recommended that a criminal case be registered and the same
investigated.
After examination of the said open enquiry report, in
H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.

A terms of the recommendation by the Vigilance Establishment,
the State Government vide order dated 2. 7.2013 directed the
U.P. Vigilance Establishment to get a case registered under
section 13(1) (e) read with section (13) (2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988 and the same investigated. In
continuation with the said direction of the State Government
B
dated 2.7.2013, Case Crime no. 407113 under section 13 (1)
(e) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 was registered on 6. 7.2013 by U.P. Vigilance
.
Establishment, Allahabad Sector, at P.S. Kotwali, District
banda, against Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the chick no. of
c which as 38512013. It is stated that after completion of
investigation in the aforestated Crime no.407113, the Vigilance
Establishment vide letter dated 29. 7.2015 submitted its
investigation report to the State Government.
In the meanwhile, Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his
D family members preferred several representations in relation
to the said investigation, on 31.7.2015, 6.8.2015, 14.8.2015,
17.8.2015, 18.8.2015, 19.8.2015, 20.8.2015, 21.8.2015,
28.8.2015, 4.9.2015, 10.9.2015, 14.9.2015 and 31.1.2016,
to the State Government, wherein several important issues
were raised in regard to the investigation report.
E It is further stated that the investigation report submitted
by the Vigilance Establishment, and the representations/
affidavits preferred by Sri Naseemudin Siddiqui and his family
members, were comprehensively examined by the State
Government, and after due consideration, it was considered
F appropriate to get a factual report in relation to the said
investigation, in regard almost 14 representations and 8
affidavits (total 80 pages) and its enclosures (total 1371
pages) submitted on different dates by Sri Naseemuddin
Siddiqui and his family members. It was directed that factual
report be made available after getting examined by the
G Vigilance Establishment, the fact of income and expenditure
from valid sources, by the State Government vide D. 0. letter
no.VIP-3139-4-16-50 N(2)/2012 TC dated 26.2.2016.
Current Status of Investigation
7. That, it has been informed by the U.P. Vigilance
H
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 371
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Establishment that for the purpose of verification of documents A
in the said enquiry, the revenue records of District Lucknow,
Banda, Gautambudh Nagar, Barabanki, and records relating
to the offices of various establishments, as well as verification/
examination of records relating to different banks and related
bank accounts in the concerned districts, have to be examined
B
and verified. Moreover, a total of 14 representations and 8
affidavits (total 80 pages) submitted by Sri naseemuddin
Siddiqui and his family members as well as documents
enclosed therewith (total 13 71 pages) have to be verified.
Additionally, the enquiry/statements ofpersons who had given
money as well as statements of other concerned persons have c
to be recorded, due to which the enquiry is taking time.
Presently, supplementary investigation is being conducted,
which is likely to be completed shortly and report submitted
to the State Government.
Ill. Otlrer proceedings against respondent nos.5&6 D
8. That, it has been intimated by the Vigilance Establishment
that in compliance with the State Governments order dated
30.11.2013 relating to investigation of corruption and .
. irregularities committed in the construction of monuments and
gardens, as also supply of sand stone in the cities of Lucknow
and Naida between 2007 to 2011, Crime No.112014 under E
Sections 4091120-B PIG and Section l 3(l)(e) read with Section
13/2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has .been
registered by the Vigilance Establishment at P.S. Gomti Nagar
Lucknow, wherein Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui is also an
accused person, Considerable prQ.gress has been' made in the F
investigation and spot inspection of 5 construction sites (1.
Ambedkar Samajik Parivartan Sthal, 2. Eco Park, 5. Naida
Ambedkar Park) and mining sites, have already been
conducted. Opinions of various experts is remaining.
Statements of a total of 170 witnesses have already been
recorded in. the iJJvestigation, and most of the documents have G
been collected. The work relating to collection ofthe remaining
documents and evidence is being done at a fast speed. The
investigation in question is pro'gressing speedily, which shall
be completed at the earliest and report submitted to the State
Government. ' H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.

A IV. Proceedings before Enforcement directorate
9. That, in this regard the Vigilance Establishment has
informed that with reference to letter dated 29.1.2014 by the
Enforcement directorate, Government of India, requiring
information and documents, by letter dated 31.1.2014, a copy
B of the First Information Report (Case Crime no.407113), has
been sent to the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate,
Government of India, 16 Ashok Marg, Lucknow. "
13. Today, when the matter was taken up for further hearing,
counsel appearing for the State Authorities as well as Union of India
c submitted that the enquiries against respondent nos.5 and 6 are in progress
and effort is being made to conclude the same in right earnest. A chart
of the status of those enquiries against respondent no.5 and 6 has been
furnished during the hearing, which reads thus:
Summary of Status Report in SLP(C) No.31025/13
D Complaint of JN Complaint of FIR regarding
Shu Ida Ashish Sal!llr llixit Parks/Monuments
Lokayukta Report no.03-2012 Report no.05-2012 Government Order on
Establishment dt222.2012 against dt. 24.8.2012 30.112013 for
Smt. Husna & Sri against Sri registration of FIR (Sri
Naseemuddin Naseemuddi n Naseemuddin Siddiqui
Siddioui Siddioui is ccraccused)
State Open Enquiry on Open Enquiry on Crime no.1/2014
E Vigilance I0.7.2013 4.10.2012 registered in P.S.
Establishment Report to State Report to State Gominagar, Lucknow
Government on Government on under s. 409/120-B
29.7.2015 29!1.2013 IPC & 13(1)(e) and
State Government 13(2) PC Act
vide order dated (corruption &
2.7.2013 directed irregularities in supply
FIR under of sand stone and
F s.13(l)(e) &13(2) coffitruction of
PC Ac~ registered monuments & parks in
on 6.72013 in P.S. LucknowiNoi da
Kotwali District
Banda (CC 407113) (page 131)
FIR copy given to
EDon31.l.2014
Representation 11 rei:resentations 14 representation.5 Considerable progress
G s & Affidavits between 4.8.2015 to between 31.7.2015 made(page 132)
14.9.2015
8 affidavits
to 31.12016
8 affidavits
- Five construction
sites inspected
Supplementary Order for factual Order for factual - 170 witn:sses
Enquiry report on 26.2.2016 report on 26.2.2016 examined
(Factual Current status of Current status of - Most documents
Report) enquhy (page 127) investigation collected
(oagel 30)
H
JAGDISH NARAIN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 373
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

14. ft is submitted by the counsel appearing for the concerned A
State agencies that having regarding to the voluminous documents and
more particularly the need to verify the correctness of the ·information
made available during the investigation/enquiry, it would take some more
time to complete the investigation/enquiry in the respective cases. The
counsel appearing for the appellant, however, submits that the law
B
enforcement agencies have not done enough and are responsible for
delaying the investigation/enquiry for reasons best known to them, which
inevitably would benefit respondent nos. 5 and 6. The counsel for the
respondent nos.5 and 6 has refuted this veiled attack on respondent
nos.5 and 6 of being responsible for delay in the enquiry. He submits
that these respondents have extended full cooperation to the concerned c
agencies thus far and would continue to do so even in future. It is
unnecessary for us to dilate on this aspect.
15. As aforesaid, the reliefin the writ petition was limited to directing
the Competent Authority to act upon the recommendations made by the
Lokayukta. That relief has worked out in view of the direction issued by D
the Competent Authority to investigate/enquire into the factual matrix
noticed in Lokayukta's report. Further, the law enforcement agencies
have moved' into action and have collected information and material
including with reference to the representations and affidavits received
in the course of the said investigation/enquiry. We may, therefore, accede
to the request of the Jaw enforcement agencies to give them some more E
time to complete the investigation/enquiries in relation to the acts of
commission and omission of respondent nos.5 and 6 or any other
P.erson(s) privy thereto.
16. Considering the fact that the law enforcement agencies are
on their job for quite sometime, we express a sanguine hope that they F
would complete the investigation/enquiry at the earliest and not later
than six months from today and take the same to its logical end in
accordance with law.
17. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on
the merits of the matters under investigation/enquiry or the defence that G
may be available to respondent nos. 5 and 6 in any proceedings to be
instituted against them in relation to the said matters.
18. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of.
H