IMTIYAZ MURTAZA J - (1.) THE above petitions have the complexion of Public Interest Litigation and have their genesis in the C.B.I enquiry conducted pursuant to the orders rendered by the Apex Court in Writ Petition No 13381 of 1984, M.C. Mehta v Union of India dated 27.11.2006 whereby the C.B.I had filed police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C alongwith the report of S.P. and entire related material against Ms. Mayawati, Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, Sri R.K.Sharma and Sri Rajendra Prasad under section 120 B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) IN the aforesaid petition filed by M.C. Mehta (supra), the Apex Court gave following direction which are excerpted below. "We accordingly, direct C.B.I to place the evidence/material collected by the investigating team alongwith the report of the SP as required under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C before the court/Special Judge concerned who will decide the matter in accordance with law. It is necessary to add that in this case we were concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of duty by C.B.I and our above observations and reasons are confined only to that aspect of the case and they should not be understood as our opinion on the merits of accusation being investigated. We do not wish to express any opinion on the recommendations of the SP. It is made clear that none of the other opinions/recommendations including that the Attorney General or India CVC shall be forwarded to the court/Special Judge concerned." It would appear that as a consequence of order of the Apex Court, the C.B.I registered a case (R.C.No 0062003 A 0018) under section 120-B IPC read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C and proceeded with investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, the C.B.I drew charge sheet against Ms. Mayawati and Mr. Naseem Uddin Siddiqui arrayed as respondents under sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but the same was placed before the Governor of U.P. for according sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C and 19 of the Prevention of corruption Act. By means of order dated 3.6.2007, the Governor declined to accord sanction for prosecution of Ms. Mayawati and Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui. Thereafter, it would further transpire, Special Judge (C.B.I), refused to take cognizance in the matter for want of sanction. The petitions aforesaid have been knit together for being decided by a composite order as the reliefs sought in all the petitions are identical/common and have been preferred in the matter commonly known as "Taj Corridor Matter".
(3.) THE contentions in all the petitions are identical and are two fold- firstly the impugned order of the designated court is patently illegal and secondly, the C.B.I despite knowing fully well that the aforesaid order is amenable to challenge, did not challenge the order. The further contention of the petitioners is that by means of the order of the Apex Court, the C.B.I was required to submit charge sheet in the court and instead of complying with the order, the C.B.I placed the charge sheet before the Governor and it was thereafter that the charge sheet was placed in the Court. It is submitted that by a stream of decisions of the Apex Court, the prior sanction would not extend its coverage to the offences under sections 120 B , 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. 5. The relief sought in Writ petition No 2087 of 2009 (M/B) filed by Anupama Singh is quoted below: (1) to issue a writ, order or direction of or in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned order of the designated court, as mentioned in Paragraph-2 of this writ petition, after summoning the record and direct the designated court to proceed in accordance with law; or (2) to issue a writ, order of direction of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the C.B.I to challenge the impugned order of the designated court, before the appropriate forum, after honestly and sincerely explaining the delay; or (3) to issue a writ, order of direction of or in the nature mandamus commanding the C.B.I to carry out further investigation or re-investigation in the present matter so that the prosecution of the accused persons is taken to its logical conclusion; (4) to issue any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case (5)to allow this writ petition with costs. ;