SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD Dr. L.P.Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Anupam Mehrotra, for Lokayukt and Sri Sameer Kalia, for the intervenor.
(2.) PETITIONER has sought to challenge the summoning order dated 27.5.2013, passed by the respondent No.3, the Lokayukt, U.P. Petitioner has further sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision/recommendations of the respondent no.3, dated 20.7.2013, after summoning it from the respondents and further to quash the orders, if any, passed by the respondent nos.1,2,4 and 5 in pursuance of the impugned order, passed by the respondent no.2. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 5 not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of order/recommendations made by the Lokayukt as published in the newspaper.
(3.) IN the instant case, the controversy emanates from a complaint dated 15.4.2013 made to the Lokayukt, Annexure No.3, perusal of which reveals that the same was lodged against three persons namely; Dr.Akhtar Riyaz (Chief Development Officer, Rae Bareli), Arun Kumar Shukla (Technical Assistants, DRDA), Rae Bareli and Ashok Tripathi (Project Manager, Rajya Sarkar Nirman Evam Vikas Sangh Limited), Rae Bareli. On the aforesaid complaint having been entertained by the respondent no.3, summons were issued to the petitioner on 27.5.2013 in exercise of powers under Order -XVI, Rule -10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thereafter, investigation proceeded in the matter and finally a report was submitted by the respondent no.3 on 19.7.2014, Annexure No.CA -1, the relevant portion of the recommendations made by the respondent no.3, vide his report dated 19.7.2013 with respect to the petitioner finds mention at page -99 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3.;