MS. MAYAWATIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                      [2012] 7 S.C.R. 33


                        MS. MAYAWATI                                A
                                V.
                  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
          (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2008)

                         JULY 6, 2012
                                                                    B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 13(2) rlw s. 13(1 )(e)
 - FIR registered under - Quashing of - Writ petition for -
 Irregularities in Taj Heritage Corridor project under Taj C
 Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra - Rs. 17 crores released
 for the project without proper sanction - Directions issued by
 Supreme Court vide order dated 18-9-2003 - CBI directed to
 conduct inquiry - FIR lodged by CBI against the writ petitioner
 uls. 13(2) rlw s. 13(1)(e) of the Act on the basis that in the said D
 order dated 18-09-2003, there was a clear direction to register
 an FIR for investigating into the alleged disproportionate
 assets of the petitioner - Plea of petitioner (who was the State
 Chief Minister on the date of filing of the writ petition) that the
 FIR was beyond the scope of the directions passed by E
 Supreme Court in its order dated 18-9-2003 - Held: Directions
issued in the order dated 18c9-2003 have to be read in the
light of the previous orders dated 16-7-2003, 21-8-2003 and
 11-9-2003 as well as subsequent orders dated 25-10-2004
and 7-8-2006 - Reading of all the orders clearly show the F
direction to lodge FIR was issued only with respect to Taj
Conidor matter, more particularly, irregularities therein - In fact,
the direction was confined to find out as to who cleared the
project of Taj Corridor and for what purpose it was cleared and
whether there was any illegality or irregularity committed by G
officers and other persons concerned in the State - Supreme
Court did not issue any direction to the CBI to conduct a roving
inquiry against the assets of the petitioner commencing from
1995 to 2003 even though the Taj Heritage Corridor Project
                               33                                   H
    34       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A was conceived only in July, 2002 and the amount of Rs.17
  crores was released in August/September, 2002 - Since order
  dated 18-9-2003 did not contain any specific direction
  regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate
  assets case against the petitioner, CBI was not justified in
B proceeding with the FIR -Impugned FIR was without
  jurisdiction and any investigation pursuant thereto was illegal
   and liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed.

         This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003 in I.A. No. 387
C   of 2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M.C.
    Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. had directed the CBI to
    conduct an inquiry in regard to the alleged irregularities
    committed by the officers/persons in the Taj Heritage
    Corridor Project. By means of order dated 21.08.2003, this
    Court issued certain directions to the CBI to interrogate
D   and verify the assets of the persons concerned with
    regard to outflow of Rs. 17 crores which was alleged to
    have been released without proper sanction for the said
    Project. On 11.09.2003, a report was submitted by the CBI.
    This Court, in its further order dated 18.09.2003, on the
E   basis of the report dated 11.09.2003, granted further time
    to the CBI for verification of the assets of the officers/
    persons involved. The CBI submitted a report on
    18.09.2003 before this Court which formed the basis of
    order dated 18.09.2003 wherein the CBI was directed to
F   conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution of the
    Taj Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone
    (TTZ) Area at Agra.

      Pursuant thereto, an FIR was lodged on 05.10.2003
G being RC No. 0062003A0018/2003 under Section 120-B
  read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under
  Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
  of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act) against several
  persons including the petitioner. On the same date i.e.
H 05.10.2003, the CBI registered another FIR being R.C. No.
        MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                 35


0062003A0019 under Section 13(2) read with Section              A
13(1 )(e) of the PC Act exclusively against the petitioner,
on the basis that in the said order dated 18.09.2003 of
this Court, there was a clear direction to register an FIR
for investigating into the disproportionate assets of the
Petitioner.                                                     B
    .Subsequently the Petitioner filed the instant writ
petition before this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution. On the date of filing of the writ petition, the
petitioner was the Chief Minister of U.P.
                                                                c
    The question raised in the writ petition was whether
FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 lodged
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC
Act against the petitioner to investigate into the matter of
her alleged disproportionate assets was beyond the              D
scope of the directions passed by this Court in the order
dated 18.09.2003 in I.A. No. 376 of 2003 in W.P. (C) No.
13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and
Others.
                                                                E
    Allowing the writ petition, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. A thorough scrutiny of all the orders
including the specific directions dated 18.09.2003 clearly
show that the same was confined only in respect to the
case relating to Taj Corridor Project which was the             F
subject-matter of reference before the Special Bench.
Para 13(f) of the order dated 18.09.2003 makes it clear that
the CBI could have lodged only one FIR No. R.C.
0062003A0018 dated 05.10.2003. There being no
consideration of alleged disproportionate assets at any         G
stage of the proceedings while dealing with the Taj
Corridor matter, there could not have been and in fact
there was no such direction to lodge another FIR being
No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 exclusively
against the petitioner under the P.C. Act. In the absence       H
    36      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 7 S.C.R.

A of any direction by this Court to lodge an FIR into the
  matter of alleged disproportionate assets against the
  petitioner, the Investigating Officer could not take resort
  to Section 157 CrPC. [Paras 15, 17] [52-D-F; 54-C]

      1.2. Further, Section 6 of ·the Delhi Special Police
8
  Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) prohibits the CBI
  from exercising its powers and jurisdiction without the
  consent of the Government of the State. In the instant
  case, the consent was declined by the Governor of the
  State and in such circumstance also the second FIR No.
C R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 is not sustainable.
  [Para 17] [54-D-E]

       1.3. Also, merely because various orders of this Court
  including the order dated 18.09.2003 has been
D communicated to various authorities in terms of the
  provisions of the rules of this Court, the CBI was not
  justified in putting the Assistant Registrar of this Court
  as informant/complainant. The complainant/Assistant
  Registrar would not and cannot be a witness in the case
E to corroborate the statements made in the FIR No. R.C.
  0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. [Para 19] [57-B-C]

       1.4. A perusal of various orders of this Court show
  that Taj Corridor was the subject matter of reference
F before the Special Bench. Various directions issued in the
  order dated 18.09.2003 have to be read in the light of the
  previous orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003 and
  11.09.2003 as well as subsequent orders dated 25.10.2004
  and 07 .08.2006 wherein this Court has clarified that it was
G not monitoring the disproportionate assets case. Reading
  of all the orders of this Court clearly show the direction
  to lodge FIR was issued only with respect to Taj Corridor
  matter, more particularly, irregularities therein. In fact, the
  direction was confined to find out as to who cleared the
H project of Taj Corridor and for what purpose it was
       MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                 37

cleared and whether there was any illegality or irregularity A
committed by officers and other persons concerned in
the State. The CBI cannot be permitted to take the view
that two cases, namely, Taj Corridor and Disproportionate
Assets case are same and the investigation was done in
both the cases as per the directions of this Court. [Paras B
18, 20) [55-C-D; 56-H; 57-A, D-G]

     1.5. From a perusal of all the available orders, it is
clear that this Court being the ultimate custodian of the
fundamental rights did not issue any direction to the CBI       C
to conduct a roving inquiry against the assets of the
petitioner commencing from 1995 to 2003 even though
the Taj Heritage Corridor Project was conceived only in
July, 2002 and an amount of Rs. 17 crores was released
in August/September, 2002. The method adopted by the
CBI was unwarranted and without jurisdiction. The CBI           D
proceeded without proper understanding of various
orders dated 16.07 .2003, 21.08.2003, 18.09.2003,
25.10.2003 and 07.08.2003 passed by this Court. There
was no such direction relating to second FIR, namely, FIR
No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. No finding or           E
satisfaction was recorded by this Court in the matter of
disproportionate assets of the petitioner on the basis of
the status report dated 11.09.2003 and, in fact, the
petitioner was not a party before this Court in the case
in question. From the perusal of the orders, it is clear that   F
there could not have been any material before this Court
about the disproportionate assets case of the petitioner
beyond the Taj Corridor Project case and there was no
such question or issue about disproportionate assets of
the petitioner. In view of the same, giving any direction       G
to lodge FIR relating to disproportionate assets case did
not arise. [Para 21] [58-A-G]

    1.6. Anything beyond the Taj Corridor matter was not
the subject-matter of reference before the Taj Corridor         H
Bench. Since the order dated 18.09.2003 does not contain
    38       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A   any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the
    matter of disproportionate assets case against the
     petitioner, CBI is not justified in proceeding with the FIR
    No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. The CBI
    exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR No. R.C.
B   0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 in the absence of any
    direction from this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 or
    in any subsequent orders. The impugned FIR is without
    jurisdiction and any investigation pursuant thereto is
    illegal and liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed.
C   [Paras 22, 24] [58-H; 59-A-B; 60-C]

         M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others (2003) 8 SCC
    696: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 925; M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor
    Scam) vs. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 110: 2006 (9)
    Suppl. SCR 683; M. C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) vs.
D   Union of India and Others (1997) 2 SCC 353: 1996 (10)
    Suppl. SCR 973; M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others
    (2003) 8 SCC 706; M. C Mehta vs. Union of India (2003) 8
    SCC 711; State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for
    Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (2010)
E   3 SCC 571: 2010 (2) SCR 979; M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India
    and Others (2007) 1 SCC 137 and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
    India and Others (2007) 1 SCC 136 - referred to.

         2. Regarding the intervention application - I.A. No. 8
    of 2010, it is true that the intervener has no legal right to
F
    intervene in the matter of this kind where CBI has been
    prosecuting the case vigorously against the petitioner.
    However, inasmuch as the intervener has challenged the
    order of the Governor of U.P. declining to grant sanction
G   to prosecute the petitioner and the said matter is
    pending in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High
    Court, in order to assist the Court, his counsel was heard
    by this Court. In view of the above special circumstance,
    the I.A. No. 8 of 2010 is allowed but the same cannot be
    cited as a precedent for other cases. [Para 23] [59-C, E-
H   F; 60-A]
        MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        39


     Union of India & Anr. vs. W.N. Chadha, 1993 (Supp) 4              A
SCC 260: 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 594 and Janata Dal vs. H.S.
Chowdhary & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 756: 1991 (3) SCR 752 -
referred to.

                       Case Law Reference:
                                                                       B
     2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 925         referred to        Para 2

     2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683         referred to        Para 2

     1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 973 referred to               Para 10

     (2003) 8 sec 706                referred to        Para 11
                                                                       c
     (2003) 8 sec 111                referred to         Para 12

     2010 (2) SCR 979                referred to         Para 16

     (2007) 1 sec 131                referred to        Para 18        D

     (2001) 1 sec 136                referred to        Para 18

     1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 594         referred to        Para 23

     1991 (3) SCR 752                referred to        Para 23        E
     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32
of the Constitution of India.

     Mohan Parasaran, ASSG, Harish Salve, S.C. Mishra,
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Kapil Mishra, Abhinav Shrivastava, D.L.           F
Chidananda, T.A. Khan, Arvind Kumar Sharma, B. Krishna
Prasad, Kamini Jaiswal, Prashant Bhushan, Anupam Bharti,
Shashank Singh, Pyoli Swatija, Akhilesh Karla, Rohit Kr. Singh,
P. Narasimhan for the appearing parties.
                                                                       G
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. The only question raised in this writ
petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is as
to whether FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003
lodged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the         H
    40        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
  "the PC Act") against the petitioner herein to investigate into
  the matter of alleged disproportionate assets is beyond the
  scope of the directions passed by this Court in the order dated
  18.09.2003 in I.A. No. 376 of 2003 in W.P. (C) No. 13381 of
B 1984 titled M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, (2003)
    a sec  696?

         2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition,
    is summarized hereunder:

C       (a) On the date of filing of this writ petition before this Court,
  the petitioner was the Chief Minister of U.P. Earlier also, the
  petitioner had been the Chief Minister of U.P. for three times.
  The petitioner had also served as a Member of Parliament
  many a time both as a Member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
D and had also served as a Member of Legislative Assembly and
  Legislative Council of the State of U.P. The petitioner is a law
  graduate and had been a teacher from 1977 to 1984. At
  present, the petitioner is the President of a National Political
  Party called as "Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)", which is one of
E the six National Parties recognized by the Election Commission
  of India.

        (b) This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003 in I.A. No. 387
  of 2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M. C.
F Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. directed the CBI to conduct
  an inquiry on the basis of an I.A. filed in the aforesaid writ
  petition alleging various irregularities committed by the officers/
  persons in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and to submit a
  Preliminary Report.

G      (c) By means of an order dated 21.08.2003, this Court
  issued certain directions to the CBI to interrogate and verify the
  assets of the persons concerned with regard to outflow of Rs.
  17 crores which was alleged to have been released without
  proper sanction for the said Project. When the case was taken
H up for hearing on 11.09.2003, a report was submitted by the
         MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     41
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
CBI and it was directed to be kept in a sealed cover in the          A
Registry.

     (d) This Court, in its further order dated 18.09.2003, on the
basis of the report dated 11.09.2003, granted further time to
the CBI for verification of the assets of the officers/persons       B
involved. The CBI-Respondent No. 2 herein submitted a report
on 18.09.2003 before this Court which formed the basis of
order dated 18.09.2003 wherein the CBI was directed to
conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution of the Taj
Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TIZ) Area        C
at Agra.

     (e) Pursuant to the orders of this Court, an FIR was lodged
on 05.10.2003 being RC No. 0062003A0018/2003 under
Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC         D
Act against several persons including the petitioner herein. In
the said FIR, certain details and several developments which
took place with regard to the aforesaid Project have been
given. As per the allegations contained in the report dated
11.09.2003, several irregularities were allegedly being found        E
in the aforesaid Project. Pursuant to the same, investigation
has been completed and the report was forwarded to obtain
the sanction from the competent authority, namely, the Governor
for prosecuting the Chief Minster of the State. The Governor,
by order dated 03.06.2007, declined to accord sanction to            F
prosecute the petitioner.

     (f) According to the petitioner, in the aforesaid FIR, it was
stated that this Court also directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry
pertaining to the assets of the officers/individuals concerned
in the aforesaid Project as mentioned in the judgment passed         G
by this Court in the aforesaid case in order to ascertain whether
any mis-appropriation of funds have been done with regard to
outflow of Rs. 17 crores released for the construction of said
Project. A perusal of the order dated 18.09.2003 would reveal
that whatever directions were issued by this Court were only         H
    42       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   in respect of Rs. 17 crores alleged to have been released
    without proper sanction and there is not even a whisper about
    making an investigation into any other assets of the persons
    involved in general. In other words, the scope of the order of
    this Court was limited to the extent of money released in the
B   said Project and not otherwise. This is clear from the order of
    this Court dated 18.09.2003 wherein it had specifically
    observed about lodging of FIR only with regard to Taj Heritage
    Corridor Project case. That order nowhere mentioned -about
     lodging of second FIR in regard to the disproportionate assets
c   of the petitioner.

         (g) It is the further case of the petitioner that contrary to
    the orders of this Court, with mala fide intentions, the CBI
    registered another FIR being R.C. No. 19 of 2003 on the same
    date i.e. 05.10.2003 only against the petitioner alleging therein
D   that in pursuance of the orders dated 21.08.2003, 11.09.2003
    and 18.09.2003 passed by this Court, they conducted an inquiry
    with regard to the acquiring of disproportionate movable and
    immovable assets by the petitioner and her close relatives and
    on the basis of this inquiry lodged the said FIR, whereas there
E   was no direction or observation by this Court to inquire into the
    assets of the petitioner not related to the said Project case.

         (h) The said FIR has been lodged by Shri K.N. Tewari,
    Superintendent of Police, CBl/ACP, Lucknow, however, in the
F   column of complaint at page No. 2 of the FIR, the name of the
    complainant/informant has been mentioned as Shri lnder Pal,
    Assistant Registrar, PIL Branch, Supreme Court of India, New
    Delhi even though no such order or direction issued by him for
    registration of the case. It is further pointed out that Shri lnder
G   Pal has not signed any such FIR as complainant/informant.
    Pursuant to the impugned FIR - R.C. No. 19 of 2003 the CBI
    conducted raids, search and seizure operations at all the
    premises of the petitioner and her relatives and seized all the
    bank accounts.

H        (i) The petitioner has made several representations to the
        MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      43
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

CBI officials, the State Minister of Personnel and the Hon'ble        A
Prime Minister who heads the Personnel Department drawing
their attention that the Supreme Court had not given any such
direction or authority to the CBI to lodge an FIR in respect to
the alleged disproportionate assets and investigate the entire
assets of the petitioner from the year 1995 which have no             B
relation with the case of Taj Heritage Corridor Project which
came into being only in August, 2003. In spite of several
reminders and further representations, till date no
communication has been received from the CBI. The absence
of any reply by any of the authorities including the CBI shows        C
that there was no direction or authority to the CBI in the order
dated 18.09.2003 to lodge an FIR or to investigate into the
assets of the petitioner which are not related to the said Project.
Hence, it was incumbent upon the CBI to comply with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police                   D
Establishment Act, 1946 (in short 'DSPE Act') which makes it
obligatory to obtain the consent of the Government of the
concerned State to confer jurisdiction on the CBI to investigate
in any case arising within the jurisdiction of a State. In the
present case, FIR was lodged and investigation was conducted          E
without obtaining consent of the State Government which is in
flagrant violation of Section 6 of the DSPE Act. In' the absence
of the consent of the State Government, the whole exercise of
the CBI about lodging of FIR and investigating into the assets
of the petitioner not related to Taj Heritage Corridor Project is     F
without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same is non est and void
ab initio.

     0) It is further pointed out that this Court in its order dated
25.10.2004, after perusing the investigation reports filed by the
CBI, held that no link was found between the irregularities G
alleged to have been found in respect to the assets matter and
the Taj Heritage Corridor Project which was the subject-matter
of the reference before the Special Bench.

     (k) The fact that this Court had stopped monitoring the          H
     44        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A    assets case was again reiterated in the order dated
     07.08.2006 passed by this Court.

          (I) On 27.11.2006, this Court finally decided the issue in
     respect to the FIR being R.C. No. 18 relating to the Taj Heritage
·B   Corridor matter reported in M. C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam)
     vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 110. In the said
     judgment, this Court observed that it should not embark upon
     an enquiry in regard to the allegations of criminal misconduct
     in order to form an opinion one way or the other so as to prima
C    facie determine guilt of a person or otherwise. When the matter
     came up before the Governor of U.P. to grant or refuse sanction
     for prosecution, he sought legal opinion from the Additional
     Solicitor General of India and based on his opinion and on
     appreciation of entire materials, the Governor has concluded
     that the petitioner was not even remotely connected with the
D    sanction of the said Project or the payment released for the
     same. After tpe above order of the Governor, the directions
     given by this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 were fully
     complied with including in respect to consider violations of the
     provisions of the PC Act. After this, there was no justification
E    or authority with the CBI to continue with the investigation in
     other personal assets of the petitioner.

          (m) On 05.06.2007, the CBI moved an application before
     the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, (CBI), Lucknow
F    informing that the Governor had refused to grant sanction. On
     perusal of all the materials including the order of the Governor
     declining to grant sanction, the Special Judge held that in the
     absence of sanction to prosecute the petitioner, the Court has
     no jurisdiction to take cognizance.

G         (n) The order of the Governor was also challenged before
     this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 434 of 2007. However, this
     Court, by order dated 06.08.2007, dismissed the same as
     withdrawn. Even thereafter, the petitioner has made several
     representations to the Director, CBI to drop the investigation
H    on the basis of the aforesaid FIR. However, the CBI is bent
        MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      45
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

upon harassing the petitioner. Hence, she approached this            A
Court by filing the present writ petition.

Stand of the CBI-Respondent No.2:

      3. Pursuant to the notice issued on 15.05.2008, the CBI-
Respondent No.2 herein has filed its counter affidavit wherein       B
it was stated that in the order dated 18.09.2003 of this Court,
there was a clear direction to register an FIR for investigating
into disproportionate assets of the petitioner on the ground that
in the said order it was mentioned that "apart from what has
been stated in the reports with regard to the assets, the learned    C
ASG Mr. Altaf Ahmad has submitted that further inquiry/
investigation is necessary by the CBI". It is further stated that
the validity of the aforesaid FIRs was not disturbed by the
Allahabad High Court by its order dated 22.10.2003 on the
ground that the FIR in question was filed as per the directions      D
of this Court. It is further stated by the CBI that the FIR No. RC
19 dated 05.10.2003 under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(e) of the PC Act reveal the details of huge amount of
disproportionate assets possessed by the petitioner and her
family members beyond their known sources of income.                 E

Further case of the petitioner:

      4. A rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit and
supplementary counter affidavits have also been filed wherein
subsequent developments which took place during the                  F
pendency of the writ petition, especially, passing of various
orders by the Income Tax Authorities, Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in favour of the petitioner for
different assessment years have been mentioned holding that
all income shown in her accounts in the form of gift or otherwise    G
are genuine and legal, covering from 1995 to 2004 of which
period the assessments were reopened, investigated and
reassessed.

                                                                     H
    46        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   Case of the intervenor:

          5. During the pendency of this writ petition, which was filed
    in 2008, one Mr. Kamlesh Verma has filed I.A. No. 8 of 2010
    claiming that he is a social worker and petitioner in Writ Petition
B   No. 2019 of 2009 (M/B) concerning FIR being RC No. 18 dated
    05.10.2003 for intervention in the above matter and to assist
    the Court. By pointing out that it was he who challenged the
    order of the Governor declining to grant sanction in respect of
    FIR No. 18 and filed Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2009 which is
C   pending in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, sought
    to intervene to put-forth certain factual details. In the said
    application, the intervener has also highlighted various earlier
    orders of this Court. The said I.A. was resisted by the petitioner
    by pointing out that in the present writ petition the petitioner
    seeks quashing of the second FIR i.e. R.C. No. 19 only on the
D   ground that there was no such direction in the order dated
    18.09.2003 passed by this Court. The intervention application
    is therefore, misconceived. It is also pointed out that the
    intervener has filed his writ petition in Lucknow in 2009 and his
    intervention application was filed on 08.09.2010 whereas the
E   petitioner had filed writ petition in May, 2008 and this Court had
    issued notice on 15.05.2008. It is also pointed out that the
    intervener was not associated with the Project matter before
    this Court at any stage when orders were passed on several
    dates commencing from 2003 ending with 2009.
F
        6. In the light of the above pleadings of the parties, we
  heard Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the
  petitioner, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor
  General for the Union of India and CBI and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,
G learned counsel for the intervener.
        7. The relief(s) sought for in the writ petition are reproduced
    hereunder:-

         "I. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari
H        quashing the FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019!2003 dated
        MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     47
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    05.10.2003 lodged by Superintendent of Police, CBl/ACB,          A
    Lucknow and investigation proceedings being made in
    pursuance thereof.

    II. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of
    Mandamus restraining the respondent no.2 and 3 from B
    proceeding further in pursuance to the said FIR and direct
    them to close and drop the said proceedings;

    Ill. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
    mandamus directing the release of all seized bank
    accounts of the petitioner which have been seized by CBI C
    in pursuance to the impugned FIR.

    IV. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring
    that this Hon'ble court under Article 32/136/142 of the
    Constitution of India or the High Court under Article 226 D
    of the Constitution of India can not direct the Central
    Bureau of Investigation (CBI), an establishment created
    under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
    to investigate a cognizable offence which is alleged to
    have taken place in a State without the consent of the
    State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special E
    Police Establishment Act, 1946.

    V. Issue any other Writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
    Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
    present case."                                                   F

      8. It is clear from the narration of facts as well as the
relief(s) sought for in the writ petition that the petitioner is
aggrieved of second FIR being No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated
05.10.2003. It is also clear that the petitioner has assailed the G
said FIR on the ground that there was no direction by this Court
in its order dated 18.09.2003 which could have empowered the
CBI to lodge two FIRs, namely, (i) FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0018
dated 05.10.2003 under Section 120-B read with Sections
420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with H
    48        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A  Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act against the petitioner as well
   as 10 other accused persons in respect of Taj Corridor matter
   and (ii) FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 under
   Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act against
   the petitioner only. It is the specific stand of the CBI that in the
B order dated 18.09.2003 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 376
   of 2003 in Writ Petition No. 13381 of 1984 - M.C. Mehta vs.
   Union of India and Others, (2003) 8 sec 696, there was a clear
  direction to register an FIR for investigating into
  disproportionate assets of the petitioner on the ground that in
c the said order, it is mentioned that "apart from what has been
  stated in the reports with regard to the assets, the learned ASG
  Mr. Altaf Ahmed has submitted that further inquiry/investigation
  is necessary by the CBI". It is also their stand that the validity
  of the aforesaid FIRs was not disturbed by the Allahabad High
  Court by its order dated 22.10.2003 on the ground that the FIR
0
  in question was filed as per the directions of this Court. It is
  further stated that the second FIR being No. R.C.
  0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003 revealed the details of huge
  amount of disproportionate assets possessed by the petitioner
  and her family members beyond their known sources of
E income.

        9. As against the abovesaid stand of the CBI, the
  petitioner, in the form of rejoinder and supplementary affidavits,
  has pointed out that all income shown in her accounts in the
F form of gift or otherwise are genuine and legal covering from
  1995 to 2004. It is further pointed out that all orders passed by
  the Income Tax Authorities have been brought on record and
  all of them attained finality and no further appeal is pending
  against them and all the assessments were reopened
G investigated and re-assessed.
         10. The petitioner has also filed a consolidated compilation
    of orders passed by this Court commencing from 16.07.2003
    ending with 27.04.2009. Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior
    counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned
H
         MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        49
               [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

ASG took us through all those orders. Among those orders,               A
we are very much concerned about the order dated
18.09.2003. Before going into the various directions issued in
the said order, it is also relevant to refer the earlier orders dated
16.07.2003, 21.08.2003 and 11.09.2003. It is clear from those
orders that this Court by order dated 30.12.1996 in M. C.               B
Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) vs. Union of India and Others,
(1997) 2   sec    353 issued a number of directions to protect
the national and world heritage monument, namely, the Taj.
Thereafter, a number of interim applications were filed by the
persons concerned who were required to shift their business             c
or manufacturing activities. This Court has also appointed a
Monitoring Committee to report whether those directions issued
by this Court are complied with or not.

     11. In the order dated 16.07.2003 - M. C. Mehta vs. Union
of India and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 706, this Court, in order to          D
find out who cleared the project, i.e., construction of the
'Heritage Corridor' at Agra and for what purpose it was cleared
without obtaining necessary sanction from the Department
concerned and whether there was any illegality or irregularity
committed by the officers/persons, came to the conclusion that          E
inquiry by CBI is necessary. Accordingly, in para 16 of the said
order, this Court directed the Director of CBI to see that inquiry
with regard to any illegality/irregularity committed by the
officers/persons be conducted at the earliest and directed to
submit a report to this Court. This Court also directed the CBI         F
to submit Preliminary report within four weeks and final report
within two months from 16.07.2003.

     12. In the next order dated 21.08.2003, M.C Mehta vs.
Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 711, this Court, after going               G
through the Preliminary Confidential Report submitted by the
CBI, directed the higher officer of CBI to interrogate four, five
or six more persons who are involved in the decision-making
of granting contract for construction of the Taj Heritage Corridor.
In the same order, this Court observed that it would be open
                                                                        H
    50        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   to the CBI officer to interrogate and verify their assets because
    it was alleged that Rs. 17 crores were released without proper
    sanction.

        13. The next order is dated 18.09.2003 - M.C. Mehta vs.
B  Union of India and Others, 2003 (8) SCC 696. In this order, this
   Court referred to the earlier directions and orders, more
   particularly, the direction to CBI to interrogate the persons
   involved and verify their assets in view of the fact that it was
  alleged that an amount of Rs. 17 crores was released without
  proper sanction. After going through the report of the CBI
C suomitted on 11.09.2003, further time was given to the CBI for
  verification of the assets of the persons/officers involved. In the
  course of hearing, the CBI has pointed out that income tax
  returns of various persons including the petitioner were
  collected from different income tax authorities. In the course of
D the said proceedings, apart from various reports with regard
  to the assets, the learned ASG - Mr. Altaf Ahmed submitted
  that further inquiry/investigation is necessary by the CBI. Based
  on his request, this Court issued the following directions:

E        "13. Considering the aforesaid report and the serious
         irregularities/illegalities committed in carrying out the so-
         called Taj Heritage Corridor Project, we direct:

         (a) the Central Government to hold immediate
         departmental inquiry against Shri K.C. Mishra, former
F        Secretary, Environment, Union of India;

         (b) the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold departmental inquiry
         against Shri R.K. Sharma, former Principal Environment
         Secretary, Shri P.L. Punia, former Principal Secretary to
G        Chief Minister, Shri D.S. Bagga, Chief Secretary and Shri
         V.K. Gupta, former Secretary, Environment;

         (c) NPCC or the competent authority including the Central
         Government to hold inquiry against Shri S.C. Bali,
         Managing Director of NPCC;
H
       MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     51
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

   (d) the State Government as well as the officers concerned A
   of the Central Government are directed to see that .
   departmental inquiry is completed within four months from
   today. The State of U.P. and the Central Government
   would appoint respective inquiry officers for holding inquiry,
   within a period of seven days from today;                      B

    (e) it would be open to the State Government if called for
    to pass order for suspension of the delinquent officers in
    accordance with the rules;

    (f) for the officers and the persons involved in the matter,   C
    CBI is directed to lodge an FIR and make further
    investigation in accordance with law;

    (g) CBI shall take appropriate steps for holding
    investigation against the Chief Minister Ms Mayawati and       o
    Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former Minister for Environment,
    U.P. and other officers involved;

    (h) the Income Tax Department is also directed to
    cooperate in further investigation which is required to be
    carried out by CBI;                                            E

    (i) CBI would take into consideration all the relevant Acts
    i.e. !PC/Prevention of Corruption Act and the Water
    (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc.;
                                                                   F
    U) CBI to submit a self-contained note to the Chief
    Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh as well as
    to the Cabinet Secretary, Union Government and to the
    Ministry concerned dealing with NPCC."

     14. A perusal of the orders prior to the order dated          G
18.09.2003 and several directions in the order dated
18.09.2003 clearly show that this Court was concerned with
illegality/irregularity committed by the officers/persons in
carrying out the Taj Heritage Corridor Project. The main
allegation relates to an amount of Rs. 17 crores which was         H
    52        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (20121 7 S.C.R.


A    released by the State Government without proper sanction. It
     is also clear that in order to find out who cleared the project
    and for what purpose it was cleared without obtaining necessary
    sanction from the Department concerned and whether there was
    any illegality/irregularity committed by the officers/persons, this
B   Court thought an inquiry by CBI was considered necessary. In
    such a situation, the CBI was directed to interrogate and verify
    their assets. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Harish Salve, there
    was no occasion for this Court to consider the alleged
    disproportionate assets of the petitioner separately that too
c   from 1995 to 2003 when admittedly Rs. 17 crores were
    released in September, 2002.

       15. A thorough scrutiny of all the orders including the
  specific directions dated 18.09.2003 clearly show that the same
  was confined only in respect to the case relating to Taj Corridor
D Project which was the subject-matter of reference before the
  Special Bench. It is relevant to point out para 13(f) of the order
  dated 18.09.2003 which makes it clear that the CBI could have
  lodged only one FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0018 dated
  05.10.2003. In other words, inasmuch as there being no
E consideration of alleged disproportionate assets at any stage
  of the proceedings while dealing with the Taj Corridor matter,
  there could not have been and in fact there was no such
  direction to lodge another FIR being No. R.C. 0062003A0019
  dated 05.10.2003 exclusively against the petitioner under the
F P.C. Act.

        16. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
  pressed into service a Constitution Bench decision rendered
  in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for
G Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., (2010)
  3 SCC 571. After considering various constitutional provisions
  relating to the State and the Union as well as Section 6 of the
  DSPE Act, the Bench has concluded thus:

         "69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question
H        referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise
   MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      53
         [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to   A
CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have
been committed within the territory of a State without the
consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal
structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of
separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the        B
protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and
the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction
but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights,
guaranteed by Part Ill in general and under Article 21 of
the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.       c
70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary
to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any
order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed
limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers.     D
The very plenitude of the power under the said articles
requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the
question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct
investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible
guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such       E
power should be exercised but time and again it has been
reite.-ated that such an order is not to be passed as a
matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled
some allegations against the local police. This
extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly,                F
cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes
necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have national and
international ramifications or where such an order may be
necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the          G
fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with
a large number of cases and with limited resources, may
find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases
and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with
unsatisfactory investigations.                                  H
    54        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A        71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v.
         Sahngoo Ram Arya this Court had said that an order
         directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when
         the High Court, after considering the material on record,
         comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a
B        prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any
         other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these
         observations."

        17. As rightly pointed out that in the absence of any
  direction by this Court to lodge an FIR into the matter of alleged
C disproportionate assets against the petitioner, the Investigating
  Officer could not take resort to Section 157 of the Code of
  Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') wherein the
  Officer-in-charge of a Police Station is empowered under
  Section 156 of the Code to investigate on information received
D or otherwise. Section 6 of the DSPE Act prohibits the CBI from
  exercising its powers and jurisdiction without the consent of the
  Government of the State. It is pointed out on the side of the
  petitioner that, in the present case, no such consent was
  obtained by the CBI and submitted that the second FIR against
E the petitioner is contrary to Section 157 of the Code and
  Section 6 of the DSPE Act. It is not in dispute that the consent
  was declined by the Governor of the State and in such
  circumstance also the second FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019
  dated 05.10.2003 is not sustainable.
F
       18. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG as well as Ms.
  Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the intervener after taking
  us through the order dated 18.09.2003 and other orders
  submitted that the CBI was well within its power to pursue the
  second FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003.
G
  Among various directions, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG
  very much pressed into service the direction in para 13(g) of
  the order dated 18.09.2003. The said direction reads as
  under:-

H        "(g) CBI shall take appropriate steps for holding
        MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     55
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    investigation against the Chief Minister Ms Mayawati and         A
    Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former Minister for Environment,
    U.P. and other officers involved;"

According to Mr. Mohan Parasaran, liberty was granted by this
Court to proceed against the petitioner. He also relied on para 8
9 of the order dated 25.10.2004 - M. C. Mehta vs. Union of
India and Others, (2007) 1 sec 137, which reads as under:-

    "Re: FIR RC 0062003A0019

    9. The further investigation report filed by CBI in this c
    connection while indicating large-scale irregularities does
    not in fact show any link between such irregularities and
    the Taj Corridor matter which is the subject-matter of
    reference before the Special Bench. CBI therefore is at
    liberty to proceed with and take action on the basis of their o
    investigation in respect of this FIR. In the event any link is
    disclosed in the course of such investigation between facts
    as found and the Taj Corridor Project, CBI will bring the
    same to the notice of this Court. In any event, CBI will be
    entitled to take action on the basis of the investigation as E
    it may think fit."

In addition to the above, he also pressed into service para 4
of the order dated 19.07.2004 - M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India
and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 136. The said order reads as under:
                                                                     F

    "4. CBI is permitted further eight weeks' time to complete
    the investigation in respect of FIR No. RC 0062003A0018.
    As far as FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 is concerned, three
    months' time is granted."                                  G
In view of the argument of Mr. Mohan Parasaran as well as Ms.
Kamini Jaiswal relying on the above directions, we have gone
through all those orders meticulously. According to us, the entire
issue revolves around the order dated 18.09.2003 passed by
this Court as the FIR was filed immediately thereafter on            H
    56        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   05.10.2003. The said FIR as well as the counter affidavit filed
  by the CBI states that the FIR has been filed as per the
  directions contained in the order dated 18.09.2003. A perusal
  of the same shows that the Assistant Registrar of this Court has
  been described as the Complainant. On going through all the
B orders, we are of the view that the said objection of the
  petitioner cannot be rejected. A perusal of the series of orders
  passed in W.P. No. 13381 of 1984 - MC. Mehta vs. Union of
  India and Others clearly show that the order dated 18.09.2003
  is preceded by other orders issued from time to time only in
c connection with Taj Heritage Corridor Project. While
  considering the directions issued in the order dated
   18.09.2003, it is incumbent to refer the orders dated
  16.07.2003, 21.08.2003 and 11.09.2003. We have already
  noted that those previous three orders passed by this Court
  state that the CBI was directed to interrogate the persons
0
  involved and also to verify their assets because it was alleged
  that the amount of Rs. 17 crores was released without proper
  sanction. It is relevant to mention that in the order dated
  25.10.2003 (which we have already quoted in the earlier paras)
  this Court mentioned that it was not monitoring disproportionate
E assets case since no link could be found between the Taj
  Corridor matter and the assets of the petitioner. (para 9 of the
  order dated 25.10.2004) It is also relevant to refer the next order
  dated 07.08.2006 wherein the same was once again reiterated.
  It is true that in the order dated 25.10.2004, liberty was granted
F to the CBI that in the event any link is disclosed in the course
  of such investigation between the Taj Corridor Project and the
  assets, CBI is free to bring it to the notice of this Court. The
  fact remains that the investigation report filed by the CBI before
  this Court which was considered on 25.10.2004 shows that
G large-scale irregularities does not show any link between such
  irregularities and the Taj Corridor matter. The said finding/
  conclusion by this Court was based on the investigation report
  of the CBI. In view of the same, we are satisfied that CBI cannot
  be permitted to take the view that two cases, namely, Taj
H Corridor and Disproportionate Assets case are same and the
        MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    57
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
investigation was done in both the cases as per the directions A
of this Court. After reading the entire orders dated 18.09.2003
and 25.10.2004, the stand of the CBI is to be rejected as
unacceptable.

      19. It is also brought to our notice that merely because B
various orders of this Court including the order dated
18.09.2003 has been communicated to various authorities in
terms of the provisions of the rules of this Court, the CBI is not
justified in putting the Assistant Registrar of this Court as
informant/complainant. Further as rightly pointed out by Mr. C
Salve, the complainant/Assistant Registrar would not and
cannot be a witness in the case to corroborate the statements
made in the FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003.
As rightly pointed out, proceeding further, as if the said Assistant
Registrar of this Court made a complaint cannot be sustained.
                                                                  D
      20. We have already pointed out after reading various
orders of this Court which show that Taj Corridor was the subject
matter of reference before the Special Bench. Various
directions issued in the order dated 18.09.2003 have to be
read in the light of the previous orders dated 16.07.2003, E
21.08.2003 and 11.09.2003 as well as subsequent orders
dated 25.10.2004 and 07.08.2006 wherein this Court has
clarified that it was not monitoring the disproportionate assets
case. We are satisfied that reading of all the orders of this
Court clearly show the direction to lodge FIR was issued only F
with respect to Taj Corridor matter, more particularly,
irregularities therein. In fact, the direction was confined to find
out as to who cleared the project of Taj Corridor and for what
purpose it was cleared and whether there was any illegality or
irregularity committed by officers and other persons concerned G
in the State. We have already noted all those orders which
clearly state that the CBI is free to interrogate and verify the
assets of the officers/persons relating to release of Rs. 17
crores in connection with Taj Corridor matter.

    21. As discussed above and after reading all the orders       H
    58        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A    of this Court which are available in the 'compilation', we are
     satisfied that this Court being the ultimate custodian of the
    fundamental rights did not issue any direction to the CBI to
     conduct a roving inquiry against the assets of the petitioner
    commencing from 1995 to 2003 even though the Taj Heritage
B   Corridor Project was conceived only in July, 2002 and an
    amount of Rs. 17 crores was released in August/September,
    2002. The method adopted by the CBI is unwarranted and
    without jurisdiction. We are also satisfied that the CBI has
    proceeded without proper understanding of various orders
c   dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003, 18.09.2003, 25.10.2003 and
    07.08.2003 passed by this Court. We are also satisfied that
    there was no such direction relating to second FIR, namely, FIR
    No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. We have already
    referred to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
    Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
0
    (supra) wherein this Court observed that only when this Court
    after considering material on record comes to a conclusion that
    such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for
    investigation by the CBI for the alleged offence, an order
E   directing inquiry by the CBI could be passed and that too after
    giving opportunity of hearing to the affected person. We are
    satisfied that there was no such finding or satisfaction recorded
    by this Court in the matter of disproportionate assets of the
    petitioner on the basis of the status report dated 11.09.2003
    and, in fact, the petitioner was not a party before this Court in
F   the case in question. From the perusal of those orders, we are
    also satisfied that there could not have been any material before
    this Court about the disproportionate assets case of the
    petitioner beyond the Taj Corridor Project case and there was
    no such question or issue about disproportionate assets of the
G   petitioner. In view of the same, giving any direction to lodge FIR
    relating to disproportionate assets case did not arise.

         22. We finally conclude that anything beyond the Taj
    Corridor matter was not the subject-matter of reference before
H   the Taj Corridor Bench. Since the order dated 18.09.2003 does
        MAYAWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     59
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in       A
the matter of disproportionate assets case against the
petitioner, CBI is not justified in proceeding with the FIR No.
R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. In view of the above
discussion, we are satisfied that the CBI exceeded its
jurisdiction in lodging FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated              B
05.1fl.2003 in the absence of any direction from this Court in
the order dated 18.09.2003 or in any subsequent orders.

      23. Regarding the intervention application - I.A. f\lo. 8 of
2010 filed by Shri Kamlesh Verma, though an objection was            C
raised about his right to intervene in the matter, it is not in
dispute that against the rejection of the sanction to proceed
against the petitioner by the State, he had preferred a Writ
Petition (C) No. 2019 of 2009 in the Allahabad High Court
which is still pending. It is pointed out that intervener was not
associated with the Taj Corridor matter before this Court at any     D
stage when the orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003,
11.09.2003, 18.09.2003, 19.07.2004, 25.10.2004, 07.08.2006,
27.11.2006, 06.08.2007, 10.10.2007 and 27.04.2007 were
passed. It is true that the intervener has no legal right to
intervene in the matter of this kind where CBI has been              E
prosecuting the case vigorously against the petitioner. Inasmuch
as the intervener has challenged the order of the Governor of
U.P. declining to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner and
the said matter is pending in the Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court, in order to assist the Court, we heard         F
his counsel Ms. Kamini Jaiswal. It is true that this Court has
held that when investigating agency like CBI and Union of India
are contesting the matter effectively, the third party was not
permitted to canvass correctness of the judgment by way of PIL
(Union of India & Anr. vs. WN. Chadha, 1993 (Supp) 4 SCC             G
260) and Janata Dal vs. H. S. Chowdhary & Ors., (1991) 3 SCC
756. While accepting the above principles reiterated in those
decisions, in view of the peculiar facts that the intervener -
Kamlesh Verma is pursuing his writ petition against the
petitioner in the High Court, we heard his counsel to assist the     H
    60        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A   Court. In view of the above special circumstance, we allow I.A.
    No. 8 of 2010 and the same cannot be cited as a precedent
    for other cases.

          24. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that in the
    absence of any specific direction from this Court in the order
8
    dated 18.09.2003 or any subsequent orders, the CBI has
    exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR No. R.C.
    0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. The impugned FIR is
    without jurisdiction and any investigation pursuant thereto is
    illegal and liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed. The writ
C   petition is allowed.

    B.B.B.                                    Writ Petition Allowed.