Vinod Prasad, J. - (1.) -Apprehensive hallucination of arrest and jail incarceration hankered by the petitioner from the respondent investigating agency Central Bureau of Investigation, (in short hereinafter referred to as C.B.I.), for the purposes of harassment and humiliation, the present petitioner, who is a senior I.A.S. Officer presently posted as Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, has knocked the door of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief that the F.I.R. of Crime Number RC 1(A)/2008/ACU IX/AC III under Sections 120B/420/167/477A, I.P.C. and Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 65 of the I.T. Act, 2000 Police Station New Delhi CBI/ACU IX District Ghaziabad, generating the investigation by C.B.I. be quashed.
(2.) THE ancillary prayer is for stay of arrest by issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent C.B.I. not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid crime number pendente lite this petition. Eschewing eschewable details, as the detailed facts are already mentioned in the decision of this Court in Deepak Sharma v. State of U. P., 2005 (4) AWC 3806, compelling the petitioner to invoke our writ power are inked below. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as N.O.I.D.A.) floated New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Residential Plots Scheme, 2004 - 1 in November, 2004, which was an outcome of a N.O.I.D.A. Board Resolution dated 28.6.2004 in it's Board's meeting held on same day. The attending participants in the meeting besides others were District Chief Executive Officer, N.O.I.D.A., Special Secretary, U. P., Government Lucknow representing the Principal Secretary Industries Department U. P., Special Secretary Government of U. P., District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Chief Town Planner, Lucknow. Special invitees in the aforesaid meeting of N.O.I.D.A. board were Managing Directors U.P.F.C., C.E.C. Greater N.O.I.D.A., Managing Director of Pradeshik Industrial Corporation U. P. (PICUP) and others. As per brochure of the scheme opening and closing dates were 3.11.2004 and 7.12.2004 respectively. The plots to be allotted were bifurcated in two categories General and Reserved category with further bifurcation of later category into five other sub-categories. No sooner the scheme was floated N.O.I.D.A. authorities started receiving various representations and complaints from various people, organsations and different political leaders raising multifarious and multidimensional grievances. For an amicable settlement thereof a committee comprising of six officers was constituted. The constituted committee made it's recommendations which were endorsed by Deputy C.E.O. and Additional C.E.O., N.O.I.D.A. on 21.12.2005. However, because of consumption of time, the closing date of the scheme was further extended up to 18.12.2004. This extension was to enable legal heirs falling under category 4 to apply for allotment of plots. Pleadings in the instant writ petition averred that the said scheme was published in various Newspapers including Times of India, Hindustan Times, Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, etc.
(3.) ANOTHER significant feature which developed during formulation of the scheme was the representations made by various entrepreneur associations and Industrial associations for allotment of residential plots allotment facility to all the units to whom lands were allotted before 16.8.2004. Representations and deliberations thereon, however, resulted in a decision that the units which were functional between 15.6.2001 and 15.8.2004 shall also be eligible for allotment of plots under reserved category-I as per the previous residential plots schemes. Some other meetings and decisions were taken but for our purposes and to shorten the controversy we only refer this much that the closing date for the said scheme 2004-1 was further extended upto 31.12.2004 so as to enable functional units also to apply under the category of the residential plot scheme. For drawing of lots of the scheme N.O.I.D.A. authorities collected necessary informations from the banks and then decided to hold a computerised draw of plots, resultantly, the authorities issued a letter dated 24.1.2004 to T.A.T.A. consultancy Service (hereinafter referred to as T.C.S.) inviting their proposal for conducting the desired computerised draw. T.C.S. submitted its proposal to N.O.I.D.A. authorities on 2.3.2005 but gave a report that there is a conflicting clause as it's employees were not eligible to participate in the draw of lots. While the deliberations with the T.C.S. were ongoing U. P. Development System Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to U.P.D.E.S.C.O.) jumped into the arena and gave a letter of intent on 17.3.2005 to work for N.O.I.D.A. authorities in drawing the computerised draw of lots of the aforesaid scheme. It is important to note that Principal Secretary department of I.T. and Electronics U. P. has issued a letter in favour of U.P.D.E.S.C.O. and ultimately it transpires that the proposal of U.P.D.E.S.C.O. was accepted by the N.O.I.D.A. authorities relating to draw of lots for the plots.;