- (1.) R. K. Dash, J. This is the petitioner's second journey to this Court against the State as well as the Chief Minister and other officials; its earlier Writ Petition No. 2423 of 1997 having been finally disposed of with certain observations. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had made certain allegations against the present respondent No. 2 and prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction directing the Vigilance Commissioner and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) for investigation of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Further prayer was made to direct the aforesaid public authorities to come before the Court and furnish an undertaking to perform their duties of investigation within stipulated time.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner as appears from the order, Annexure-1, was with regard to creation of Greater NOIDA and investment of huge amount from public exchequer for creation of Ambedkar Park. THE Court upon hearing the Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate General for respondent No. 2 and Counsel for the C. B. I. disposed of the said writ petition with the observation and direction that the Comptroller & Auditor General of India which has taken up inquiry as entrusted to it by the State Government with regard to creation of Ambedkar Park shall make all endeavour to conclude the inquiry preferably within four months. As regards the allegation concerning Greater Noida, in view of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI that pursuant to notification by the Central Government, the matter had been entrusted to CBI for investigation, the Court held the writ petition to have become infructuous. More than five years thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition when respondent No. 2 was elected as leader of the ruling coalition and became Chief Minister of the State. The prayer as made in the writ petition are: - " (i) to issue a writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 (State of U. P. , Central Bureau of Investigation and Comptroller & Auditor General of India) to submit all inquiry reports made against opposite party No. 2; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction to comply the direction of this Court made in the earlier writ petition and to put opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 on criminal trial and to punish them. " On behalf of respondent-State, two short counter affidavits were filed; one by Ram Brikchh Prasad, Special Secretary, Appointment, Government of Uttar Pradesh and other Amitabh Tripathi, Under Secretary, Housing & Urban Planning, Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Special Secretary in the counter affidavit has stated that the C. B. I. after holding inquiry concerning Greater Noida submitted report on 31-3-1999 recommending that such action as deemed fit may be taken against Babu Ram, the then Chairman of Greater Noida and for departmental action Yogesh Kumar. After receiving the recommendation, explanations were called from those two officers. Upon receipt of explanations, the Industrial Development Commissioner reported that no case for taking any action is made out against Yogesh Kumar on the basis of materials available on record. So far Babu Ram is concerned, upon examination, it was decided not to take any action against him since he had already retired from service. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI, it appears that the allegation against these two officers was with regard to passing resolution for changing nature of the land from industrial to home-stead and after thorough inquiry, the C. B. I. recommended for taking departmental action against them.
(3.) SO far the allegation with regard to Ambedkar Park, it stated in the counter affidavit of the Under Secretary that the Comptroller & Auditor General of India made a special audit and submitted a report which was ultimately placed before State Legislative Assembly on 15-7-1999 and as provided under Articles 151 and 154 of the Constitution, the said report is being examined and considered by the Public Accounts Committee of the U. P. Legislative Assembly and since the said Committee is seized of the matter, no writ petition would lie for directing to hold a parallel probe. From the factual scenario as aforesaid, what is deducible is that the petitioner has charged the Ex- Chief Minister Mayawati with two allegations; one concerning Greater Noida and other, regarding creation of Ambedkar Park. The earlier writ petition was finally disposed of with certain observations as referred to earlier. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI that the allegations against two officers of Greater Noida for changing the nature of land from industrial to home- stead having been found true, recommendation was made for taking departmental action. In such view of the matter, we do not like to make further inquiry by calling upon the inquiry report from the C. B. I. in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.;