http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  633 of 2005

PETITIONER: Vishwanath Chaturvedi

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/03/2007

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

The above writ petition under Article 32 of the  Constitution of India styled as Public Interest Litigation  has been preferred for seeking enforcement of  fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21  of the Constitution of India.  According to the petitioner,  he is an advocate by profession and not connected or  related to any political party or parties.  According to him,  he has filed this petition with an intention to highlight the  root of corruption in U.P. Administration.  According to  him, he has no relation or connection with Congress Party  as on date and that the documents which have been  enclosed along with the additional affidavit filed by  respondent No.3 would go to prove that respondent No.3  is having more access in the office of Congress party,  more than even the members of AICC/UPCC and that  respondent No.3 with the help of some employees of  AICC/UPCC succeeded in forging documents to project  the petitioner as a sponsored person of Congress.  It is  also further stated that he is not connected with any  alleged PIL Cell of concerned party.  The name of the  petitioner does not appear in the list which is approved by  the office of the Congress party and that the list annexed  by respondent No.3 along with his affidavit is a frivolous  list.  It is also further stated that the petitioner never  attended 82nd Plenary Session of AICC at Hyderabad and  Annexure A-3 is a frivolous document which is prepared  by respondent No.3 with the help of some employees of  U.P.C.C. and that the petitioner also paid some money to  an employee of UPCC and got same identity cards  prepared in the name of Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, Shri  Shivpal Singh Yadav, Shri Akhilesh Yadav and Shri Ram  Gopal Yadav.  Copies of the said identity cards have also  been enclosed as Annexure K-6 to the rejoinder to the  counter affidavit.  We have perused the identity cards  namely, Annexures A-3 and K-6.  In our opinion, both the  identity cards which are zerox copies cannot at all be  considered as authenticated documents.  In the absence  of concrete proof that the petitioner belongs to the  Congress party, his writ petition cannot be thrown out on  the question of maintainability and on the ground that  the petitioner is an active member of the Indian National  Congress and the office In-charge of Humanitarian Aid  and Redressal Public Grievance Cell.  We do not,  therefore, propose to deal with this issue any further and  proceed to consider the case of both the parties.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

The petitioner has filed the above petition with the  following prayers: "(a)    issue an appropriate writ in the nature of  mandamus directing respondent No.1 to  take appropriate action to prosecute  respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under the  provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988 for acquiring amassed assets more  than the known source of their income by  misusing their power and authority;

(b)     pass such other or further order(s) as  this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and  proper in the interest of justice."

According to the petitioner, the contesting  respondents have misused their power and authority and  have acquired assets more than the known source of  their income.  Apart from the Union of India, the  petitioner has arrayed Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the  sitting Chief Minister, UP,  and his two sons and one  daughter-in-law as party respondents.  In paragraph 10  of the writ petition, the petitioner alleges to have made a  representation dated 6.11.2005 being annexure P-3, to  the Hon’ble Home Minister, Government of India, giving  all the details and requested the Home Minister to take  appropriate action against the respondents.   It is alleged  that the Home Minister has failed to take action against  the aforesaid respondents under the provisions of the  Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The petitioner also made a representation dated  02.07.2005 to the Hon’ble Governor of the State of U.P.  requesting the Governor to take immediate action against  the 2nd respondent, his sons and one daughter-in-law  under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988.  However, the Governor has failed to take any  action on the representation made by the petitioner.  The  petitioner in the representation has given the details in  regard to the properties owned by all the contesting  respondents.  The petitioner has also filed all the sale  deeds and other documents.  According to the petitioner,  though some of the properties mentioned by Shri  Akhilesh Yadav and Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, in the  affidavits submitted by them before the Election  Commissioner, however, source of acquiring such  properties have not been mentioned in the said affidavits.   From the year 1977 , both Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav  and Shri Akhilesh Yadav were completely involved in full  time political activities.  According to the petitioner, the  contesting respondents owned properties worth several  crores which have been acquired by them and that these  properties have been undervalued by these persons and  the market value of aforesaid properties is ten times more  than the value mentioned by them in their affidavits and  in the sale deeds.  It is further submitted that the  respondent Nos. 2-5 have acquired wealth by misusing  their power and authority and they do not have any  source of income and that all the properties acquired by  them are at prime locations.   The petitioner has also filed additional affidavit  dated 16.12.2005.  According to the petitioner, he had no  intention to wreck vengeance against any political leader  and that the respondents are afraid of justifying their  conduct of acquiring amassed wealth, disproportionate to  their known sources of income.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

When the matter was listed before a Bench  comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat &  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker on 7.6.2006, the  learned Judges, after hearing learned counsel appearing  for the respective parties, passed the following order: "Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Though Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Adv.  For respondent Nos. 2 to 5 raised objection as to  maintainability of the petition stating that bona fides  of the petitioner are not established, at this juncture,  we do not consider it necessary to go into the details  on that aspect.  The basic issue involved is alleged  investments and sources for such investments.  Let  respondent Nos. 2 to 5 file copies of the Income-tax  and Wealth-tax returns, if any, filed before the  authorities of the said respondents along with details  which accompanied the returns, if they were filed and  copies of orders, if any, passed by the statutory  authorities, within four week.  Such details shall be  filed for the Income-tax/Wealth-tax assessment years   2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007.  The statement of Wealth shall  be filed for the aforesaid assessment years i.e. the  Statement of Wealth as on 31.3.2001, 31.3.2002,  31.3.2003, 31.3.2004831.3.2005, 31.3.2006.  We are  informed by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5  that notices have been issued by the Income-tax  authorities for some of the aforesaid period calling for  informations in terms of Section 133(6) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").  The proceedings  pursuant to those notices may continue untrammeled  by the fact that the present writ petition is pending  and we have asked for certain details to be filed.

Call this matter on 17th July, 2006."

Pursuant to the said direction, respondent Nos.  2,3,4 & 5 have submitted their Income-tax Return and  Income Tax Assessment Order, Wealth Tax Return and  Wealth Tax Assessment Orders for the assessment years  2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and  2005-2006 in  sealed covers.     Respondent Nos. 2-5 also  filed separate affidavits along with income-tax returns  etc.  The second respondent has also explained in his  affidavit dated 7.7.2006 that all the returns of the  deponent/respondent No.2 and the return of Samajwadi  Party for the assessment year 2005-2006 as well as the  assessment orders passed with respect to the  deponent/respondent No.2, are being submitted in a  sealed cover for the perusal of this Court and that it also  includes material submitted along with the returns. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the reason  for submitting  the material in sealed cover is that the  said documents are not public documents and are  otherwise liable to be misused.  Similar affidavits have  also been filed by the other respondents 3-5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of  respondent Nos. 2-5 denying all the allegations and the  statements made in the writ petition.  It is stated in  paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit that the reliefs  sought for in the instant petition are not maintainable  inasmuch   as the State of U.P. has not been impleaded  as a party respondent and furthermore a bare perusal of  Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

would reveal that the investigation could possibly be  made only by an officer of the rank of Deputy  Superintendent of Police of the State Government.  A  detailed parawise reply has also been furnished with  reference to each respondent, the properties acquired  and the sources of purchase and other details.  According  to the respondents, the petitioner has attempted to  mislead this Court and in the guise of PIL, he is seeking  to tarnish the name and reputation of respondent Nos. 2- 5.  It was further submitted that the instant petition may  be dismissed. A detailed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit  was filed by the petitioner denying all the allegations  contained in the counter affidavit.  In paragraph 7 of the  rejoinder, it is stated as follows: "7.  In reply to para 1.2 and 6 it is stated that  respondent No.2 Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav and his  kith and kins are not only having properties  mentioned in the writ petition,  they are also having  various other properties worth rupees several hundred  crores.  Details of some of the properties which could  not be mentioned in writ petition are given below:

(a)     Respondent have recently constructed  a very big medical college and post- graduate college in the name of  Choudary Charan Singh Degree  College, Hewra, District Etawa by  spending about Rs.100 crores.  Out of  the said amount, Rs.80 crores (Eighty  Crores) has been spent from  contingency fund of government of U.P.  for the year 2003-2004 and 2004- 2005.  Photos of said medical college  and post-graduate colleges are  enclosed herewith as Annexure K-8 to  this affidavit.

(b)      Respondent No.2 has also constructed  a very big college under the name and  style "U.P. Rural Institute of Medical  Science and Research Institute", Saifai  (Etawa) by spending huge amount of  Rs.100 crores.  Photos of said institute  are enclosed herewith as Annexure K-9  to this affidavit.

(c)     Respondent No. 2 to 5 are also having  a very big house at village Saifai near  Etawa.  The said house is hundred  times better than 5 Star Hotel in Delhi.   In order to develop said house about  Rs.2 crores have been spent from  contingency fund of Government of  U.P.  Photo of said house is enclosed  herewith as Annexure K-10 to this  affidavit.

(d)     Respondents jointly have also  constructed several huge buildings at  Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow near Raj  Bhawan and Vidhan Sabha.  Photos of  said buildings are enclosed herewith as  Annexure K-11 to this affidavit.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

(e)     Respondents have recently given one of  the buildings situated at 31/93  Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow to  ABN Amro Bank.  Petitioner has  reasons to believe that said building  has been given on a monthly rent of  Rs. 20 lacs.  A photo of said building  given on rent to ABN Amro Bank is  enclosed herewith as Annexure K-12 to  this affidavit.

(f)     Respondents were having a very big  farm house near Gomti Nagar,  Lucknow measuring about 5 acres,  which was sold recently for a sum of  Rs. 5 crores by respondents Shri  Akhilesh Yadav and Shri Pratik Yadav.   Photo of said farm house is enclosed  herewith as annexure K-13 to this  affidavit.

(g)     Respondent Shri Mulayam Singh  Yadav is having a very big house at  Friends Colony, Etawa.  Photo of  same  is enclosed herewith as Annexure K-14  to this affidavit.

(h)     Respondent Shri Mulayam Singh  Yadav is also having a bungalow at  Civil Lines, Etawa.  Photo of same is  enclosed herewith as annexure K-15 to  this affidavit.

(i)     Respondent Shri Akhilesh Yadav is  also having a very big bungalow at Civil  Lines, Etawa.  Photo of same is  enclosed herewith as Annexure K-16 to  this affidavit.

(j)     Besides this, respondent Nos. 2-5 are  also having several benami properties  in the name of Shri Rajpal Yadav,  brother of Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav  who had been working in U.P.  Warehouse Corporation as a Clerk.   Details of said properties are given  below:

(i)     Petrol pump at Saifai (Photo  enclosed herewith as  Annexure K-17 to this  affidavit).

(ii)    House at Friends Colony,  Etawa (Photo enclosed  herewith as Annexure K-18 to  this affidavit).

(k)     Huge building at Etawa under the  name of Lohiya Trust at Friends  Colony, Etawa.  All respondent Nos. 2  to 5 are members of said Trust (Photos  of building of said Trust enclosed  herewith as annexure K-19 to this  affidavit).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

(l)     Besides the aforesaid, there is another  property in the name of Smt. Malti  Devi, deceased wife of Shri Mulayam  Singh Yadav, adjacent to 31/93,  Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow.  It is  also a property worth Rs.19 crores.

(m)     It is submitted that so far as property  belonging to Shri Ranbir Singh Yadav  is concerned, Shri Ranbir Yadav was  the nephew (brother’s son) of Shri  Mulayam Singh Yadav, s/o Shri Ratan  Singh Yadav.  All these properties in  the name of Shri Ranbir  Yadav are  benami properties of Shri Mulayam  Singh Yadav.  Neither Shri Ranbir  Yadav s/o Shri Ratan Singh Yadav nor  his father Shri Ratan Singh Yadav have  any source of income."  

                      Several photographs marked as "K series" have also  been filed by the Petitioner.  At the time of hearing, a chart was filed by the  petitioner furnishing the details in regard to the name,  description of property, consideration alleged to be paid,  market value on the date of purchase and the market  value in 2007 which is marked as ’A’.   Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent  No.2, at the time of hearing, has placed four documents  collectively marked as ’B’.  These are as follows: (1) Zerox Copy of the letter dated 5.5.2006 from the  Government of India, Office of the Assistant Director of  Income-Tax, Ashok Marg, Lucknow  addressed to Shri  Mulayam Singh Yadav, respondent No.2 requesting him  to furnish such an information to the sender. (2) Zerox copy of the letter dated 5.5.2006 from the  Government of India, Office of the Assistant Director of  Income-Tax, Ashok Marg, Lucknow addressed to Shri  Mulayam Singh Yadav, respondent No.2 to personally  attend his office on 26.5.2006 to give evidence and to  produce through an authorized representative the books  of account and or other documents specified in the notice  etc. (3)  Zerox copy of the letter dated 24.5.2006 from  Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, respondent No.2 to The  Additional Director of Income Tax, Lucknow informing  about furnishing of the documents, as required, through  an authorized representative and Counsel. (4)   Zerox copy of the letter dated 15.6.2006 from  the Authorised representative and counsel to the  Additional Director of Income-Tax, Lucknow furnishing  certain information with reference to the notice. Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the  petitioner, on 20.2.2007 furnished a corrected chart  running into six pages in regard to the name, description  of property, consideration alleged to be paid, market  value on the date of purchase and the market value in  2007  and also a zerox copy of the Constitutional Law,  Fourth Edition by John E. Nowak.  It is marked as ’C’. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the  contesting respondents,  along with his letter dated  23.2.2007 submitted reply to the Chart which was filed  during the course of the arguments in this matter on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

13.2.2007 by the counsel for the petitioner. It was stated in the letter that a completely new  chart including properties which were expressly given up  during the arguments and in regard to which no  arguments were advanced have been included in the new  chart filed on 20.2.2007, therefore, the said chart dated  20.2.2007 may not be taken into consideration.  Along  with his letter dated 23.2.2007, Mr. P.H. Parekh,  submitted the response of respondent Nos. 2-5 to the  chart of  properties tendered to this Court by the  petitioner on 13.2.2007 in the course of hearing.  The  said response is marked as ’D’  which runs into 8 pages. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Bench  comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker, respondent Nos. 2-5  filed zerox copies of  their Income-tax Returns. Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, respondent No.2, filed  zerox copies of  his Income-tax Return which is marked  as ’E’ runs from page 5 to 134.  Likewise, Shri Akhilesh  Yadav, respondent No.3, filed zerox copies of his Income- Tax Returns which is marked as ’F’ runs from page 3 to  98.  Mrs. Dimpal Yadav, respondent No.4, also filed zerox  copies of her Income-Tax Returns which is marked as ’G’  runs from page 3 to 88.  Shri Prateek Kumar Yadav,  respondent No.5, filed zerox copy of his Income-tax  Return which is marked as ’H’ runs from page 3 to 12. Several sale deeds in Hindi and English have also  been filed along with the writ petition.  On the above  pleadings, documents and records placed before this  Court, we heard the arguments of  Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi,  Mr.  Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel and Mr. D.K. Garg,  learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.  Vishwanatha Shetty, learned senior counsel for the  Union of India, Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel,  for respondent No.2, Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior  counsel, for respondent No.3, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,  learned senior counsel, for respondent No.4 and Mr. R.F.  Nariman, learned  senior counsel, for respondent No.5. According to Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi and as already stated  above, the net assets of the family are of  Rs.9,22,72,000/- as per the calculation made by the  official valuer and the present value of the net assets  comes to Rs. 24 crores.  He invited our attention to the  pleadings and the charts filed by the petitioner before  this Court.  In support of his submissions, he relied on  the judgment of this Court in K.L. Dorji vs. C.B.I. ,  (1994) 3 SCR 201 and  in   Prakash Singh Badal vs.  State of Punjab , (2007) 1 SCC 1. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in Vineet  Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. ,  (1998) 1 SCC  226 (3 Judge Bench).  In paragraphs 55 and 56 this  Court observed as under: "55. These principles of public life are of general  application in every democracy and one is expected to  bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of  every holder of a public office. It is trite that the  holders of public offices are entrusted with certain  power to be exercised in public interest alone and,  therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the  people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any  of the them amounts to a breach of trust and must be  severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the  carpet. If the conduct amounts an offence, it must be  promptly investigated and the offender against whom a  prima facie, case is made out should be prosecuted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and  the rule of law vindicated. It is the duly of the judiciary  to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard  against erosion of the rule of law. 56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life  leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It  also has adverse effect on foreign investment and  funding from the International Monetary Fund and the  World Bank who have warned that future aid to  under-developed countries may be subject to the  requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption,  which prevents international aid from reaching those  for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to  investigative journalism which is of value to a free  society. The need to highlight corruption in public life  through the medium of public interest litigation  invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is  not unknown in other countries : R v. Secretary of  State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1955) 1  WLR 386." Concluding his arguments, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi,  submitted that all that is required at this stage is to  direct the competent investigating agency to enquire into  the matter and submit a preliminary report and to take  further action on the basis of the said report. Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing  for respondent No.2 took us through the pleadings and  the documents, in particular, the common counter  affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2-5 and submitted that  the respondents have shown their assets etc. acquired by  them and the same have been duly assessed by the  Income-tax authorities and that the FDRs have been  shown in the income-tax Returns with regard to the  synopsis at page ’J’.  Learned senior counsel further  submitted that the property in question is in the name of  Samajwadi Party and was purchased by the Samajwadi  Party directly and an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- and  stamp duty of Rs.11,10,000/- was paid on 8.6.2005 for  the said property and upon conversion into free-hold  property on 26.2.2005, an amount of Rs.40,41,621/-  along with stamp duty and miscellaneous expenses of  Rs.4,15,000/- have been paid by the Samajwadi Party  and that respondent No.2 had executed the deed in his  capacity as the President of the Samajwadi Party.  He  invited our attention to the Deed of Freehold Leasehold  Nazool Land and the schedule at page 380 of the writ  petition paper book.  He also invited our attention to the  paragraphs (b), (f) and (g) of the common counter affidavit  of reply in regard to respondent No.2  and submitted that  the information already furnished are available with the  Income-tax Department and are not public records.   Mr.  Harish Salve further invited our attention to the prayer  made in the writ petition, additional affidavit filed by the  petitioner (page 276 of the paper book) and the reply filed  thereon.  According to him, the facts mentioned and  details furnished in the writ petition are highly disputed  facts and Income-tax authorities are already working on  it and that the writ petition has been filed by a political  opponent, the same cannot be countenanced and is liable  to be dismissed. He invited our attention to paragraphs 171 and 173  of the judgment of this Court in Common Cause, A  Registered Society vs. Union of India & Ors., (1999) 6  SCC 667 and submitted that having regard to the facts of  the case and the ingredients of the offence alleged to have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

been committed by the respondents, no case was made  out against the respondents for any case being registered  against them on the basis of the allegations made in the  writ petition nor was there any occasion to direct an  enquiry by the CBI in this regard. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel, appearing  for respondent No.3 submitted that in matters like this  question of balancing factor must be taken into account  and that no action can be ordered or initiated merely on  suspicion and that this type of vague petitions should be  discouraged.  He submitted that Income-tax Returns  have already been submitted and the matters are  pending before the concerned authorities and all the  payments were made by cheques is an indication to show  that the allegation made by the petitioner is not true.  He  further submitted that the respondents have given all the  explanations in their counter affidavits and, therefore, no  action at the request of the public interest litigant can be  ordered.  He invited our attention to the judgment of this  Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh ’Lalan’ (VIII) & Anr. Vs.  Union of India & Ors. , (2006) 6 SCC 613.  The said  decision, in our opinion, has no application to the facts of  this case.  The  above case relates to a pending criminal  matter before the special Court and while dealing with  the  liberty of an accused in that case, this Court was of  the opinion that the liberty of an accused cannot be  taken away except in accordance with the established  procedure of law, under the Constitution and that  criminal procedure and other cognate statutes and that  the PIL is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings.   The case on hand does not relate to any pending criminal  proceedings.  The records placed before us and the  allegations made by the petitioner encountered by the  respective respondents are related to the properties  purchased by the contesting respondents and that the  properties acquired are disproportionate to their known  source of income. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel,  appearing for respondent No.4 who is the wife of  respondent No.3 reiterated the same arguments  advanced by other learned senior counsel appearing for  the respondents.  He also submitted that separate  Income-tax Returns were filed on behalf of respondent  No.4 and that respondent Nos. 2-5 have their own  agricultural income from trading in agricultural produce  and the same can be verified from the Income-tax  Returns.  He also denied that respondent No.3 has no  source of income and that he had returned to India in  1997 and not  in the year 2002 as alleged and that he  has a substantial income from wholesale trading in  agricultural produce.           Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing  for respondent No.5 who is a student and son of  respondent No.2.  He simply submitted that the mother  of respondent No.5 purchased a plot in his name.   He further submitted that the writ petition should  be dismissed at the threshold as it is politically  motivated.  He invited our attention to pages 388 and  431 of the writ petition and submitted that the property  was purchased on 24.12.1999 by Smt. Sadhana, the  mother of respondent No.5 herein from one Shri Ranveer  Singh  and Shri Rajesh Bhojwani vide two cheques drawn  on Allahabad Bank, Etawah.  Vide agreement dated  7.10.2006,  the said property has been sold to M/s Liza  Builders Pvt. Ltd.  for an amount of Rs.2.50 crores and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

advance of Rs.1 crore has been received for the same.   With regard to the property mentioned at paragraph (b)  at page 9, it is submitted that an amount of  Rs.1,89,30,000/- (cost of Rs.1,72,00,000/- and stamp  duty and miscellaneous charges of Rs.17,30,000/- was  paid for the same) and for the said purchase, a loan of  Rs.1,10,000,00/- had been taken from respondent No.3  and for the remaining amount the aforementioned  advance received from M/s Liza Builders Pvt. Ltd. was  utilized. He also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by  Shri Prateek Yadav, respondent No.5 and statement  made thereunder in paragraph 2. It was stated that in  accordance with the directions of this Court contained in  the order dated 7.6.2006,  respondent No.5 has  furnished the Income-tax Returns for the assessment  year 2006-2007.  The assessment proceedings are still  pending, therefore, the assessment order cannot be filed.   It is, therefore, submitted that the Income-tax Return  filed by respondent No.5  is the first Income-tax Return  as he became major in the financial year 2005-2006.  No  wealth tax return has been submitted for the assessment  year 2006-2007 as one residential building (8/2  Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow) and agricultural land at  Village Nagla Sohan District Etawah are exempt from the  wealth tax in view of the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act,  1958.  He also furnished the Income-tax Return for the  assessment year 2006-07 in a sealed cover as the same is  not a public document and is otherwise liable to be  misused. Mr. Viswanatha Shetty, learned senior counsel,  appearing for the Union of India, invited our attention to  the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India and  submitted that the Union of India will abide by any  direction that may be issued by this Court.  In reply to  the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel  appearing for the contesting respondents, Mr. K.T.S.  Tulsi,  invited our attention to the rejoinder to the  counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2-5 at pages  462, 463 and 498 of the writ petition paper book.   According to him, a prima facie case is made out for  initiating enquiry and there is every minute ground to  suspect and, therefore, the prayer asked for should be  granted. As already noticed, voluminous documents by way  of several sale deeds, Income-tax Returns, Income-tax  Assessment Order, Wealth Tax Returns and several  photographs have been filed.  This apart, several charts  in regard to the properties purchased by various  respondents have also been filed.  The contesting  respondents have also filed a separate chart and all these  documents have been marked as ’A’ to ’H’. In our opinion, the minuteness of the details  furnished by all the parties and the Income-tax Returns  and Assessment Orders, Sale deeds etc. have to be  carefully looked into and analysed only by an  independent agency with the assistance of the Chartered  Accountant and other accredited Engineers and valuers  of the property.  As stated by the petitioner, very valuable  properties in the heart of the City have been purchased  for lower sale consideration and lesser than the market  value on the date of purchase and, therefore, it requires a  detailed enquiry which is time consuming.  This Court  will not be in a position to verify each and every entry,  the sale deed, the extent of the property, the location and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

description of the property, the name of the purchaser,  the name of the vendee, consideration alleged to be paid  and the market value on the date of the purchase etc.etc. We have already referred to the prayer made at page  17 of the writ petition paper book which is to issue a writ  in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India  to take appropriate action to prosecute respondent Nos.  2-5 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988 for acquiring assets more than the known source of  their income.  The said prayer, in our opinion, cannot at  all be countenanced straightaway.  The Income-tax  Department is concerned only with the source of income  and whether the tax was paid or not, therefore, only an  independent agency or the CBI could, on Court direction,   determine the question of disproportionate assets.  We,  therefore, direct the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry  into the assets of all the respondents and after  scrutinizing if a case is made out then to take further  action in the matter.        According to Mr. Harish Salve, the property  mentioned in the petition was accounted for in the  Income-tax Returns and as the Income-Tax Department  was already seized of the matter, no further enquiry was  called for and that the Court should not entertain a  petition which was full of disputed facts.  It is true that  the facts stated by the petitioner is disputed by the  respondents in their counter affidavits and the facts and  figures stated by the respondents in their counter  affidavits are again disputed by the petitioner in his  rejoinder affidavit.  The petitioner has also filed an  additional affidavit.  In addition to the above, respondent  Nos. 2-5 have filed their Income-tax Returns and Wealth  Tax Returns as directed by another Bench of this Court.   Therefore, voluminous documents have to be  meticulously scrutinized and carefully perused and  statements have also to be recorded from the persons  concerned which require expertise in the field of  accounting and in the valuation.  Since disputed facts  are involved, it requires an investigation by an  independent agency that is by the CBI.   Respondent No.2, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, is a  senior politician and holding a very high public post of  Chief Minister in a very big State in India and the  allegations made by the petitioner against him have cast  a cloud on his integrity.  Therefore, in his own interest, it  is of utmost importance that the truth of these  allegations is  determined by a competent forum.  Such a  course would subserve public interest and public  morality because the Chief Minister of a State should not  function under a cloud and that it would also be in the  interest of  respondent No.2 and the members of his  family to have their honour vindicated by establishing  that the allegations are not true.  In our view, these  directions would subserve public interest.           The ultimate test, in our view, therefore, is whether  the allegations have any substance.  An enquiry should  not be shut out at the threshold because a political  opponent of a person with political difference raises an  allegation of commission of offence.  Therefore, we mould  the prayer in the writ petition and direct the CBI to  enquire into alleged acquisition of wealth by respondent  Nos. 2-5  and find out as to whether the allegations made  by the petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets to  the known source of income of respondent Nos. 2-5 is  correct or not and submit a report to the Union of India

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

and on receipt of such report, the Union of India may  take further steps depending upon the outcome of the  preliminary enquiry into the assets of respondent Nos. 2- 5.   In the instant case, it needs to be noted that we are  concerned in this case not with the merits of the  allegations.  The present petition is filed on acquisition of    alleged wealth .   The test which one has to apply to decide the  maintainability of the PIL concerns sufficiency of the  petitioner’s interest.  In our view, it is wrong in law for  the Court to judge the petitioner’s interest without  looking into the subject matter of his complaint and if the  petitioner shows failure of public duty, the Court would  be in error in dismissing the PIL. It is also equally true that PIL is not maintainable to  probe or enquire into the returns or another taxpayer  except in special circumstances.  It is the ratio of the  decision of House of Lords in the case of  Inland  Revenue Commissioners vs. National Federation of  Self-employed and Small Business Ltd. , 1982 Appeal  Cases 617.  However, when scams take place,  allegation  of disproportionate assets are required to be looked into.   In the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (Taj  Trapezium Matter), (2003) 8 SCC 696, the Division Bench  of this Court not only directed CBI to investigate the  cases against the bureaucrats but also to enquire the  outflow of Rs. 17 crores released by the State of U.P. in  respect of project undertaken by NPCC.  In that matter,  the income tax returns of the former Chief Minister and  other officials were ordered to be collected by this Court.   They were directed to be collected from various income  tax authorities.  The point to be noted is that the source  of the funds plays a crucial role in investigations by CBI  in matters involving misappropriation of public funds.         We make it clear that we are not expressing any  opinion on the rival claims made by the respective parties  under the documents, annexures and other papers filed  in these proceedings.  The Registry is directed to send in  sealed cover the  documents marked as ’A’ to ’H’ and all the copies of the  sale deeds and other statements etc. filed by the parties  to the CBI.  The CBI may take the assistance of  Chartered Accountants, Engineers and certified valuers  for evaluation of the properties and proceed with the  investigation and enquiry in the matter with an open  mind.  In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sushil  Kumar Modi & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 500, this Court in  paragraph 11 has observed as under:  

"We deem it proper to emphasize that every  officer of the CBI  associated with the investigation has  to function as a member of a cohesive team which is  engaged in the common pursuit of a fair, honest  and  complete investigation into the crimes alleged.  It is  needless to further emphasize that the exercise has to  be performed objectively and fairly, mindful of the fact  that the majesty of law has to be upheld and the rule  of law preserved, which does not discriminate between  individuals on the basis of their status, position or  power.  The law  treats everyone as equal before it and  this has to be kept in view constantly in every State  action to avoid violation of the ’right to equality’  guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition  is ordered.  No costs.