Supreme Court to hear plea in disproportionate assets case against ex-UP CMs Mulayam Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav.

 The Supreme Court would hear on Monday a plea seeking a direction to the CBI to place the investigation report in the disproportionate assets case against Samajwadi Party leaders and former Uttar Pradesh chief ministers — Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh Yadav.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has listed the fresh plea of political activist Vishwanath Chaturvedi for hearing on March 25 in which he has sought a direction to the CBI to file its probe report either before the apex court or before a magisterial court in the assets case.

Chaturvedi, in 2005, had filed the PIL in the top court seeking a direction to the CBI to take appropriate action to prosecute Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh, his wife Dimple Yadav and Prateek Yadav, the other son of Mulayam Singh, under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly acquiring assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power of authority.

The apex court, in its verdict of March 1, 2007, had directed the CBI “to enquire into allegations” and find out as to as to whether the plea with regard to disproportionate assets of SP leaders was “correct or not”.

Later in 2012, the court dismissed the review petitions of Mulayam Singh, Akhilesh and Prateek against its verdict and had directed the CBI to go ahead with the probe against them in the disproportionate assets case.

It, however, had allowed the review plea of Dimple Yadav and had directed the CBI to drop the inquiry against her saying that she was not holding any public office.

The court had also modified its March 1, 2007 order and ordered the CBI to file the status report before the court and not to the government.

Chaturvedi, in his fresh plea, said, “Despite the yawning gap between the complaint made/court’s directions and the pendency of filing of a regular Case in this matter, an unusually long period as already escaped without any action being taken on the matter for 11 long years”.

The matter was still pending with the CBI for registration of a regular case, “fair, impartial and immediate investigation leading to prosecution of the offenders”, it said.

Till date, no FIR has been registered against the Yadavs and it has not only caused “some irremediable and irrecoverable damaged to the whole case, but also raised serious questions of credibility and integrity of our investigating agencies”, the plea said.

The CBI is duty bound to register a regular case as mandated by the provisions of law and also report the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate as mandatory and provided by procedure law, it said.

Referring to the CBI’s earlier status report, the fresh plea said that the report indicated that disproportionate assets were possessed not only by Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh and Prateek but also by Dimple Yadav.

On the basis of Income Tax Returns and reliable documents of the Yadav family members, the disproportionate assets were calculated at Rs 2.63 crore, it said.

Ex-CMs Mulayam, Akhilesh move Supreme Court for time to vacate official homes

Former UP chief ministers Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh Yadav today moved the Supreme Court seeking “appropriate time” for vacating their official residences allotted by the Uttar Pradesh government.

The top court had on May 7 held that former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh cannot retain government accommodation after demitting office and said that a chief minister was at par with a common man once his or her term ends.

The two former Chief Ministers had earlier moved the UP government’s estate department seeking two years’ time to vacate their official residences and shifting to their private accommodations in Lucknow.

In their pleas filed through advocate Garima Bajaj, they have sought appropriate time to vacate their official bungalows on various grounds.

While the plea filed by Mulayam Singh Yadav sought sufficient time from the supreme court to make arrangements for alternate accommodation, the one by his son Akhilesh has urged the court to consider the security of his family.

“We are requesting the Supreme Court to grant us sufficient time to make arrangements for a suitable alternate accommodation, taking into consideration the security of the petitioner and his family members,” Akhilesh said in his plea.

“Grant us sufficient time to make arrangements for a suitable alternate accommodation, taking into consideration the security of the petitioner, age and ill health,” plea by Mulayam Singh Yadav said.

The pleas by the father-son duo has been filed in the backdrop of the May 7 apex court judgement that had struck down an amendment in a state legislation allowing former Chief Ministers to retain government accommodations even after demitting office.

Shortly after this verdict, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh and Rajasthan governor Kalyan Singh, who were Chief Ministers earlier, had informed the estate department that they will vacate the government bungalows.

Rajnath Singh and Kalyan Singh are among the six former chief ministers who have been asked by the estate department to vacate the bungalows within 15 days in pursuance of the Supreme Court’s order.

However, former UP chief minister and BSP supremo Mayawati recently put up a signboard outside her official accommodation in Lucknow announcing that it was a memorial named after the party founder late Kanshiram.

The top court had passed the order on a petition filed by an NGO Lok Prahari challenging the amendments made by the erstwhile Akhilesh Yadav government to the ‘UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981’.

In its order, it had observed that a Chief Minister cannot continue to occupy public property like government bungalows which belong to the people of the country and said the provision had the effect of creating a separate class of citizens for conferment of benefits by way of distribution of public property on the basis of the previous public office held by them.

The court, in its 29-page order, had said once such persons demit public office, there is nothing to distinguish them from the common man.

The apex court had also said that in a democratic republican government, public servants, entrusted with duties of public nature, must act in a manner that reflects that the ultimate authority is vested in the citizens and it is to the citizens, that the holders of all public offices are eventually accountable.

The NGO had also challenged another UP law of 2016 called ‘The Allotment of Houses under Control of the Estate Department Bill-2016’ to regulate the allotment of government accommodation to trusts, journalists, political parties, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of legislative assembly, judicial officers and government officials.

The supreme court had sought the UP government’s response in November 2016, after the plea claimed that state government has sought to skirt the Supreme Court verdict of August 1, 2016 by amending the law.

In that verdict, the apex court had held that the practice of allotting government bungalows to former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh was bad in law and they should hand over their possession in two months.

It had also said the state government should recover appropriate rent from the occupants of these bungalows for the period of their “unauthorised occupation”.

Court raps UP for withdrawing cases against terror accused

ddUttar Pradesh’s Akhilesh Yadav government came in embarrassment Thursday when the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court rapped it on its move to withdraw cases against terror accused.

A bench of Justice Ashok Pal Singh, Justice Devi Prasad Singh and Justice Ajay Lamba, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a local advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, said the move can only be taken forward with the sanction of the union government.

The petitioner had alleged that the Akhilesh Yadav government had initiated the move to appease the Muslims.

The state government had earlier this year initiated a process to withdraw terror charges levelled against 19 Muslim youth for their alleged role in serial blasts in courts at Faizabad, Lucknow and Gorakhpur. The Samajwadi Party in its poll manifesto for the 2012 state assembly polls had promised to release such terror accused presuming they were innocent.

Reacting sharply, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said that the decision of whether the accused were guilty or not cannot be taken by the government and should be left to the judiciary.

“This is a tight slap on the face of the state government which works 24×7 to appease the Muslims for its narrow vote bank politics,” BJP state spokesman Chandra Mohan said.

Congress spokesman Akhilesh Pratap Singh also said that the courts should decide who is guilty or not guilty.

(Source: IANS)

SC pulls up UP over Muzaffarnagar riot victims’ plight

ccPulling up the Uttar Pradesh government over the plight of victims of the Muzaffarnagar riots, the Supreme Court has ordered it to immediately supply blankets and medical help to people living in relief camps.

The apex court reacted sharply to media reports of death of some 50 children due to cold and poor facilities in the relief camps.

“Taking note of the cold conditions in the forthcoming months, we hereby further direct the state administration, particularly the district concerned, to take necessary steps and provide required remedial assistance at once,” said the three-member bench headed by Chief Justice P. Sathashivam.

Over 60 people were killed in riots in Muzaffarnagar and nearby areas in September, while more than 43,000 were displaced.

Justice Sathashivam said the court was very concerned over media reports of children’s deaths and directed the state government to provide all material help by Friday.

He said the helpless people were living in open camps and the coming months of severe cold will be difficult for them. He posted further hearing for Jan 21.

On being told that the state government has already formed a committee to look into the complaints after seven deaths were reported in October, the chief justice said that if the court does not find the findings of this investigation agency, it shall set up a special investigation team.

The court recorded assurance of the state government’s senior counsel Rajiv Dhawan that “necessary steps will be provided by Friday, Dec 13”.

Other judges on the bench were Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The court noted that the petitioners have reported deaths in camps based on a newspaper’s report and their own investigations.

The court also noted non-implementation of its earlier directions fully to provide necessary help to the inmates of the camps, particularly to children, aged people and all affected people.

It directed the state government to file a detailed report on the correct position at the next hearing.

The court said various news channels have shown images of people struggling for their lives in the cold under the open sky. It quoted media reports as saying that around 50 children died as they could not bear the cold temperatures of the season.

“It is very unfortunate for a country like India that the whole country is unable to save even small children who were dying on account of their no fault,” the court said.

(Source: IANS)

UP court issues warrants against chief minister and two others

Senior officers in the state administration swung into action on Tuesday evening following reports that a local court in Faizabad had issued a bailable warrant against chief minister Akhilesh Yadav, Samajwadi PartyMLA Tej Narain Pandey and IAS officerl Ajay Shukla, seeking their appearance in a case. Pandey is also a minister and Shukla former district magistrate of Faizabad. The warrant was later withdrawn after officers took remedial measures.

The warrant was issued by the additional district judge (V) of Faizabad on a petition by one Ali Baba, a resident of Maudaha in Faizabad. The chief minister and the two others were directed to appear before the court on September 23. In his petition, Ali alleged that Pandey, who is MLA from Ayodhya in Faizabad, forcibly got a road and a drain constructed on his land. The construction work was done with the constituency development fund of Pandey. Ali also alleged that the construction was done with the consent of the chief minister and the then district magistrate.

Senior officers said Ali filed a case in the court of the chief judicial magistrate when his complaints were not heard by the district officials. The CJM, however, rejected the petition. Later, he filed a revision petition in the court of ADJ (V). “It seems that that the ADJ issued several notices but no one responded, as a result the court Tuesday issued bailable warrants,” he said. However, now the warrant has been withdrawn, he added.

(Source: IANS)

Complaint against Vahanvati not maintainable

A Delhi court dismissed as “not maintainable” a complaint seeking registration of FIR against G E Vahanvati, H R Bhardwaj and Prithviraj Chavan for allegedly abusing their offices to “shield” Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav in a disproportionate assets case.
Special Judge Sangita Dhingra Sehgal dismissed the complaint saying the complaint originates from a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court which had already been disposed of.

“The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition (filed by advocate Vishwanath Chaturvedi seeking probe in disproportionate assets of Mulayam Singh, his son Akhilesh Yadav, Prateek Yadav and Dimple Yadav) finally on March 1, 2007 and closed the same.

According to the court, “No court whatsoever is empowered to reopen and interfere in orders of the Supreme Court and interference, if any, would amount to contempt of court which would be liable for action.”

“The complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed,”According to the judge.

The court also noted that on December 13, 2012 the Supreme Court had in a review petition filed by Akhilesh Yadav passed an order that CBI may take independent action as it considers fit on the basis of the enquiry conducted by it …without seeking any direction from the Centre.

The order came on a complaint filed by Chaturvedi seeking registration of FIR against Vahanvati for allegedly abusing his office during his tenure as Solicitor General, Bhardwaj, who was then the Law Minister and Chavan, then Minister in charge of personnel department during UPA-I.

The complaint also names as accused CBI DIG Tilottama Varma and also two other CBI officials.

Chaturvedi submitted in the court that “Vahanvati, Bhardwaj and Chavan had conspired with other officials to shield Yadav and his family in the disproportionate assets case after the SP leader agreed to support UPA-I during the July 22, 2008 trust vote.”
In the legal opinion on the matter, the complainant said, “Vahanvati had opined that Yadav has satisfactorily explained his wealth and assets and that the assets of his family should not be clubbed with his wealth as nowhere has it been alleged that they were holding benami properties in his name.”

Akhilesh behind 2011 ‘rape’ case against Rahul, SC told

NEW DELHI: A lawyer on Monday told the Supreme Court that a 2011 rape and wrongful confinement case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in Allahabad high court was filed at the instance of Akhilesh Yadav, the current Uttar Pradesh chief minister.

An apex court bench of Justice BS Chauhan and Justice Swatanter Kumar was told this by counsel Kamini Jaiswal in the course of the hearing of a petition by Kishore Samrite who has challenged a high court order directing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against him and imposing a cost of Rs 50 lakh.

The apex court stayed the operation of the high court order in April.

Jaiswal, appearing for Samrite, told the court that he had received instructions from Pandara Road asking him to move the high court for implicating Rahul Gandhi.

When Justice Swatanter Kumar sought a clarification on the Pandara Road dimension of the case, Jaiswal said that the instruction came from the current chief minister and the leader of the party.

“He (Kishore Samrite) had been given instruction from Pandara Road to file the petition,” she said.

“Why don’t you disclose (the identity of the person)?” asked Justice Swatanter Kumar.

Jaiswal replied, “The present chief Minister and the leader of the party. I have given this statement to the CBI.”

As Jaiswal named Akhilesh Yadav, senior counsel Ratnakar Dash, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, denied the involvement of Akhilesh Yadav in the alleged implication of Rahul Gandhi and his friends in the rape case of the girl.

The court adjourned the hearing till Sep 17 as Dash said that he would like to take instructions and file an affidavit countering the allegation.

Rahul Gandhi in an earlier affidavit had denied the rape allegation saying: “I emphatically deny the allegation of rape and detention of the writ petitioner by me and say both these allegations are false, malicious and baseless and no cognizance could be taken by any responsible person of such allegations made on a website.”

The Congress leader sought the dismissal of the petition challenging the high court order absolving him of the allegation of illegal detention and rape of a girl in his Amethi Lok Sabha constituency in Uttar Pradesh.

Samrite challenged the March 7, 2011 order of the high court by which it directed a CBI probe against him and imposed a cost of Rs 50 lakh on him.

The high court ordered that out of Rs 50 lakh cost, Rs 25 lakh were to be paid to the girl who was named as the alleged victim, Rs 20 lakh to Rahul Gandhi and Rs 5 lakh to Uttar Pradesh Police for tracing the alleged victim.

Jaiswal recounted the sequence of steps taken by Samrite in making representation to the governor, the then chief minister, assembly speaker, the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women.

Justice Chauhan observed that in this case except for the affected parties everyone was active. “The real people are not coming and others are coming either for publicity or to serve some other people.”

Jaiswal said that “there can be no smoke without fire. If there was nothing then how could so many things happen”.

Taking note of the great urgency with which the CBI acted, Justice Chauhan observed: “In this case every one acted in great urgency. Police and even the registrar of the high court.”

 

Akhilesh Yadav: Game of name changing continues

It seems that Uttar Pradesh is not going to do development in future but will do development in changing names of cities, changing names of programmes initiated by Mayawati. Since the coming of Akhilesh Yadav we often hear maladministration news from Uttar Pradesh this is perhaps because of his total attention is diverted towards changing names of cities.

 We all have been hoping from this young Turk that he will change UP, UP will now get rid from rule of older people, a fresh air of development will move in UP, he will supply young blood in the veins of people which is sleeping till date but in opposite to our hopes he is following footsteps of old people.

 Mayawati who named 8 cities of Uttar Pradesh in the name of Dalit heroes to inspire dalits has been changed by Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav to their older names.The decision in this regard was taken at a Cabinet meeting chaired by Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav.

 While Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar, formerly known as Amethi, will now be known as Gauriganj, Rambai Nagar will be called Kanpur dehat.The names of Bheem Nagar, Prabuddha Nagar and Pancheel Nagar have been changed to Bahjoi, Shamli and Hapur respectively, they said.Similarly names of Kanshiram Nagar, Mahamaya Nagar and JP Nagar have been changed to Kasganj, Hathras and Amroha respectively.

 The Cabinet also restored the name of King George’s Medical University (KGMU), which was changed to Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University in the BSP regime.

 SP changing names of districts with ‘ill will’: Mayawati

 BSP supremo Mayawati today accused ruling SP of changing “with an ill will” the nomenclatures of districts named after saints, gurus and dalit icons during her regime.

 “New districts were created during BSP regime and named after dalit and OBC icons so that they always remain a source of inspiration for the society,” the former Chief Minister said here in a statement.

 “But the present SP government has unnecessarily changed names of the districts with new ones that do not have any serious meaning. It is an insult to icons and to the society, and history will never forgive it,” she said.

 Mayawati said though reports of change in the names of districts were appearing in the media, she did not believe that the SP government would work “with an ill will” and go to the extent of insulting dalit and OBC icons.

  “The decision of the SP government is very painful and condemnable. I think that (by doing so) SP supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav and his Chief Minister son Akhilesh have got their names written in black letters in the pages of history,” Mayawati said.

 “My government never changed the name of any district, instead it created a new district and gave it an inspirational name,” she added.

Corruption cases continue to haunt Mayawati

Mayawati,Bahajun Samaj Party(BSP) supremo and former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh (UP) may have got relief in the disproportionate assets (DA) case from the Supreme Court but corruption cases will continue to chase her.

While the 2003 Taj Heritage Corridor Scam is still pending in the Allahabad high court, her name is also being taken in the anomalies in construction of dalit memorials in the state during her rule and in the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam. Significantly, the DA case had come out during investigation for Taj Heritage Corridor case. Though DA case has been quashed, the next hearing of the Taj Heritage Corridor scam is scheduled before a bench of Justices Imtiyaz Murtaza and SC Chaurasia on July 10.

 In 2002, the Supreme Court had ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the Taj Heritage Corridor case on a petition. She was accused of swindling Rs 17 crore that was meant to develop and upgrade the area and tourist facilities near the Taj Mahal. The project was then cancelled for environmental reasons.

 In 2003, while investigating the Taj case, the CBI filed the DA case against her. She was accused of misusing her term as the chief minister for personal gain. Mayawati took plea that they money she has was ‘gift’ and ‘donations’ from party workers. The investigations in Taj corridor case also continued. The CBI filed a chargesheet against Mayawati, her close aide and former minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former principal secretary of environment RK Sharma and former environment secretary Rajendra Prasad under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 before a special CBI court in 2007. Bureaucrat PL Punia, who was close to Mayawati in 2003, was also named by the CBI but he turned approver and after retirement from the services joined Congress and won Lok Sabha election from Barabanki in 2009. The CBI court denied to admit the chargesheet against Mayawati because then UP governor TV Rajeswar, appointed by the Congress-led UPA government at the Centre, refused permission to the CBI to prosecute Mayawati, saying that there wasn’t enough evidence. The CBI approached Supreme Court against governor’s decision but its plea was rejected. The case was closed but in 2009 a fresh public interest litigation was filed in the Allahabad high court seeking prosecution of bigwigs allegedly involved in the scam.

 The CBI is also looking for legal remedies in the DA case. The Supreme Court, in its verdict on Friday, said that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in filing a DA case against BSP supremo as in 2003 it was instructed to go ahead only with the Taj case. However, the CBI says that the apex court on October 25, 2004 had delinked the two cases and asked the agency to proceed with the investigations.

 Now using the 2004 order, the CBI may file a review petition. The agency is also probing the role of BSP chief in over Rs 5000 crore NRHM scam in the state during her rule.

 On the other hand, the SP government in UP is contemplating to refer the multi-crore scam in implementation of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) in the state to the CBI. SP leader and urban development minister Azam Khan has written to chief minister Akhilesh Yadav that JNNURM scam is bigger than NRHM scam and requires a thorough probe by the CBI. The complaints of anomalies in construction of dalit memorials in Lucknow and Noida during the BSP rule has already been referred to the Lokayukta by the SP government. Union rural development minister Jairam Ramesh has asked UP government to refer CBI inquiry into the scam in implemenation of MNERGA. A petition has been filed by a retired judge in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad high court seeking probe into all the alleged scams reported during Maya rule. They include Rs 300 crore dalit memorial scam, Noida land scam, Rs 1200 crore scam in sale of 21 government sugar mills, scam in appointment of 72,000 government teachers and scams in excise and mining departments among others.