- (1.) These two Criminal Revisions have been filed for setting aside the orders dated 28th June, 2010 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 235 of 2010 CBI v. Ram Shanker Singh and Ors., taking cognizance of the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 201, 420, 477-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 after rejecting the objections filed by the Revisionists. The Revisionists have also sought the quashing of the orders dated 28th July, 2010/3rd September, 2010 by which bailable warrants have been issued against the Revisionists as they did not appear before the Court despite service of summons.
(2.) It is pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court on 4th October, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors., connected with Writ Petition No. 50418 of 2005 filed by Manav Sewa Samiti and Ors., that the CBI initiated the investigation. The dispute in the two writ petitions referred to above was in connection with the advertisement issued by 'New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "NOIDA") inviting applications for allotment of residential plots for the General Category applicants and for the Prescribed Reserved Category applicants in the 'Residential Plots Scheme 2004(1)' (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). While Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 was filed by Deepak Sharma for a direction upon NOIDA to execute the lease deed in his favour on the basis of the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 and for quashing the order dated 4th July, 2005 by which the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 was cancelled, Writ Petition No. 50418 of 2005 was filed by Manav Seva Samiti and 26 others for prohibiting NOIDA from approving the draw of lots held on 2nd July, 2005 and for causing an investigation to be done by a suitable agency to determine the liability of individual officers and for holding a fresh draw of lots.
(3.) We, therefore, consider it appropriate to reproduce the observations and directions issued by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition on 4th October, 2005 which are: For all the reasons stated above we are of the clear opinion that the assignment of work to UPDESCO was a mala fide exercise of power by the Chairman-cum-Executive Officer, NOIDA. This sole illegality is grave enough to cancel the draw of lots. At this stage we would like to comment on the conduct of the Officials of NOIDA in the context of the records produced before us. By the order dated 11th July 2005 we had directed NOIDA to produce the relevant records including the records relating to correspondence with the agencies responsible for draw of lots and the list of successful allotees. On 19th July 2005 certain records were produced by NOIDA including the file titled "Allotment of Residential Plots Scheme 2003(1)" and the papers containing the list of successful allotees. A perusal of the aforesaid file shows that the note sheets from pages 1 to 57 relate to the 2003(1) Scheme and the documents from page No. 1 to 275 also relate to 2003(1) Scheme. The file also reveals that the note sheets from page No. 59 to 103 relate to the Scheme in dispute namely 2004(1) Scheme and the papers from page No. 276 to 421 also relate to the Scheme 2004(1). We are surprised that the file relating to Residential Plot Scheme 2003(1) should contain note sheets and papers relating to the 2004(1) Scheme and our suspicion came true when the counter affidavit was filed by NOIDA in the Second Petition. In this counter affidavit there are note sheets containing page Nos. 27 to 36 relating to 2004 (1) Scheme which have been annexed as Annexure CA-3. Similarly Annexure CA-4 contains note sheets from pages 37 to 39. It is, therefore, clear that even though these note sheets relate to 2004(1) Scheme they were not produced by NOIDA on 19th July 2005 inspite of our specific order dated 11th July 2005. The note sheet pages from 104 to 109 are, however, contained in a separate file titled "Residential Plot Scheme 2004(1). It is only when we were examining the records, after the orders had been reserved on 19.9.2005 that these facts came to light and so on 23.9.2005 we directed the learned Counsel appearing for NOIDA to produce the file relating to 2004(1) Scheme and also make available the information mentioned in the order. The file relating to 2004(1) Scheme was produced by the learned Counsel only on 27.9.2005. We feel that this file was deliberately kept away from us since it also contained notes and correspondence relating to the two extensions of the last date for submission of forms and it only when we subsequently passed the order on 4.8.2005 that they filed the counter affidavit annexing certain documents from the said file to explain the reason for granting the two extensions. It appears that prior to 4.8.2005 NOIDA wanted to conceal facts about the two extensions. We, therefore, have no hesitation in putting on record that the officials of NOIDA have not been fair to the Court and they deliberately withheld the records inspite of the specific order of the Court. We also do not have any hesitation in stating that the officials of NOIDA have been very evasive in their reply to the specific query contained in our order dated 23.9.2005 about the letter dated 13.4.2005 submitted by TCS on 15.4.2005 in response to the letter dated 5.4.2005 sent by NOIDA. We have considered this aspect earlier but we repeat that they have deliberately withheld the answer to the query and have, therefore, impliedly accepted the receipt of the letter sent by TCS. Such conduct of the officials of NOIDA is reprehensible and deserves to be deprecated. This is a serious matter and we propose to deal with it with equal seriousness. A public authority must not act in a manner which casts a shadow on its credibility. The manner in which NOIDA has proceeded compels us to ponder whether there are other files also which contain notes/documents because there is at least one letter of TCS which has not been produced by NOIDA inspite of our specific order. Thus, in view of the fact that the draw could be manipulated by using simple queries including change of font and the fact that NOIDA itself has admitted that there was a change in font and flaw in the software, we have no reason to doubt that the draw itself was manipulated. However, to determine whether such manipulation was done by UPDESCO at the behest of NOIDA officials or on its own, a detailed investigation is required to be done. We, therefore, propose to pass appropriate orders in this regard for the conduct of such an enquiry. We have upheld the decision taken by NOIDA to cancel the draw of lots. The entire process leading to the draw of lots stinks and is a complete farce. It has shocked our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is indeed ironical that the holders of public office in whom the public reposes sacred faith and who are expected to rise to the occasion and respond by adopting a fair procedure have chosen to abuse the position held by them. It is the public that has suffered on account of the oppressive and capricious acts of these public officers. The interest of justice, therefore, demands that the officers found indulging in such acts be proceeded against and dealt with sternly so that it may serve as a lesson to others. It is our bounden duty under the Constitution to ensure that the justice system does not become 'soft, supine and spineless'. We are satisfied from the materials available on record that there is a prima facie case calling for an investigation and looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry to be done and the mighty people who are alleged to be involved, we are of the opinion that the matter should be referred to investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at Delhi. The CBI shall conduct the investigation to find out the officials/employees of NOIDA, UPDESCO and the State Government responsible for manipulation in the draw of lots held by NOIDA on 2nd July, 2005 for the aforesaid Scheme and the names of such persons/beneficiaries at whose behest and directions they have resorted to such manipulation. An investigation is also required to be carried out to ascertain whether NOIDA officials had produced the entire records relating to the Scheme before this Court and if not what are the other records so that this Court may suitably punish such officials for committing contempt. The Court cannot be a mute spectator where fraud and manipulation of such a high magnitude has been practiced. It is, therefore, a fit case where, in order to find out the guilty persons responsible for fraud and manipulation in the draw of lots and in order to restore the confidence of the public in the matter of draw of lots, we consider it necessary to issue the following directions for holding the fresh draw of lots and for investigation by CBI and they are: FOR HOLDING FRESH DRAW OF LOTS: FOR INVESTIGATION BY CBI: (1) The CBI shall conduct an investigation to find out the officials/employees of NOIDA, UPDESCO and the State Government responsible for manipulation in the draw of lots held by NOIDA on 2nd July, 2005 for its 'Residential Plot Scheme 2004 (1)' and the names of such persons/beneficiaries at whose behest and direction the manipulation was done. We request the Director, CBI to get the investigation carried out under the supervision of a responsible Senior Officer. The investigation must be initiated at the earliest as otherwise vital evidence, oral and documentary would run the risk of being obliterated. The report may be submitted to this Court within three months. (2) The CBI shall also conduct an investigation to ascertain whether the NOIDA officials had produced before the Court the entire records relating to the aforesaid Scheme pursuant to the order dated 11th July, 2005 and if not, then the details of such records shall be submitted to this Court. This report may be submitted within six weeks. (3) The entire records produced before this Court by the learned Counsel for NOIDA and the learned Counsel for TCS, shall be kept in a sealed cover with the Registrar General of this Court to be handed over to the CBI. (4) Sri H.S. Hajela, learned Counsel for CBI has undertaken to communicate the orders passed by us today to CBI for necessary action. The efforts made by us are a step towards cleansing the public administration. It is indeed a herculean task but we do hope that this small step would make great strides in the days to come. We have already held that Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 is devoid of all merits and accordingly it has to be dismissed. However, we are inclined to keep this petition pending only for the purposes of issuing appropriate orders after the preliminary report is submitted by the CBI in respect of the documents produced by the NOIDA officials and the report on the basis of the investigation regarding manipulation in the draw of lots. However, Writ Petition No. 50418 of 2005 is disposed of. Let Writ Petition No. 48287 of 2005 be listed before us on 21.11.2005 for passing further appropriate orders.;