Sudhir Agarwal, J.@mdashThe Application No. 2268 of 2014 has been filed seeking permission of this Court to participate in the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 40817 of 2011, though the said proceedings have already been completed after passing the judgment dated 14.10.2011. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court itself has not passed any order, but has directed the Government to make appropriate enquiry into certain aspects of the matter and if it finds something therein, to proceed accordingly. I, therefore, find no justification to grant leave, as sought for, but in order to do complete justice so that no person may complain that he is condemned without giving any opportunity of hearing, I permitted learned Senior Counsel, Sri Ravi Kant, to address this Court further on the Recall Application preferred by these very applicants, Suresh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar. Learned Counsel for applicants submitted that in para. 6 of the judgment, certain observations have been made by this Court which is noted in para. 4 of the affidavit accompanying Recall Application and it is contended that the applicants were not given any opportunity of hearing before making such observations. From a bare perusal thereof, I find that observations do reproduce what this Court found the state of affairs from the perusal of record and having said so, the matter has been left to be examined by appropriate inquiring authority and that is how the direction has been issued in the operative part of the judgment for making enquiry in the matter so that none of the parties may be prejudiced otherwise. I, therefore, do not find that anything has been done by this Court so as to cause any prejudice to applicants at all at this stage.
2. Moreover, this Court is informed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri C.S. Singh, that in the enquiry conducted by C.B.C.I.D., prima facie guilt of manipulation etc. has been found in respect to some officials, namely, Sri Pradeep Kumar, the then Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad and for that purpose, the letter was sent seeking sanction of prosecution which has now been granted by Secretary (Appointment). Photocopy of the letter dated 29.5.2014 sent by Sri Yogeshwar Ram Mishra, Special Secretary, U.P. Government, communicating that sanction of prosecution of Sri Pradeep Kumar under sections 218/120B, I.P.C. read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has already been granted and the appropriate letter would be issued within a fortnight, has been produced before this Court which is taken on record.
3. It is not disputed by learned Counsel for applicants that the judgment of this Court by itself does not constitute an evidence in respect to the aforesaid misdeed, which have been found prima facie by C.B.C.I.D. in the investigation made and they have collected enough material justifying prosecution in their own investigation. This application thus is nothing but an attempt to frustrate those proceedings.
4. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicants, however, contended that when a writ petition is dismissed, this Court cannot issue further direction and for this purpose placed reliance on
5. In State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (supra), Apex Court held that where the Court decline to grant relief finally to any of the parties on the ground of alternative remedy, a direction in the nature of interim relief, while deciding the writ petition finally, should not and cannot be granted, since that is not the scope of Article 226. The High Court took the view that petitioner must avail remedy in Civil Court in respect to dispute raised before it, but before invoking such remedy, section 80, C.P.C. notice will have to be given, which will have two months'' time, the Court thus passed an interim order in favour of petitioner, itself, while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. It is this approach adopted by High Court which has not been approved by Supreme Court observing, when final relief has not been granted, Article 226 cannot be resorted, to grant an interim relief only, at the stage of passing final order.
6. This is not the case in hand. Here this Court has neither granted relief to the petitioner nor to respondent No. 1 against whom the writ petition was filed challenging licence granted to him by the official authorities. Even with respect to the order impugned in this writ petition, this Court did not pass any order so as to grant relief, interim or final, to any one of the parties. On the contrary, while looking to the submissions advanced, as also the preliminary observations taken on behalf of respondents, this Court noticed certain serious discrepancies, manipulation in the official record etc. and whatever this Court noticed, being apparent from the official record produced before it, with those observations a direction has been issued to the competent authority, i.e., State Government to make an appropriate enquiry in such activities, conducted in official record of the Department, and to take action against person(s) found responsible in such enquiry.
7. It is, in fact, certain malpractices, in official record, which came to the notice of this Court, which has caused in giving direction for investigation and to proceed in accordance with law. Neither any relief has been granted to any one of the parties nor any order adverse to any individual''s interest has been passed but when certain material illegalities like forgery, manipulation, tempering of record etc. which amounts to offence(s) also, came to the notice of this Court, the Court can always require competent authority to make an appropriate investigation into the matter and if finds anybody responsible therefore, to take action accordingly in accordance with law. Here is nothing to be equated with what has been said by Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (supra). In my view, reliance placed on the aforesaid judgment is thoroughly misconceived and does not help the petitioner in any manner.
8. To the same effect is the decision in Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) where the Court said that if an appeal is not decided on merits and right of the parties are not decided, no order so as to confer any benefit upon any of the party to the suit be passed in final order of the Court and that is how Court declined to pass an order for payment of compensation. The Court said:
"We do not, therefore, propose to say anything on the rights of the intervener or give any directions with reference to the payment of compensation amount. It is open to intervener to take other and appropriate proceeding to vindicate his rights."
9. The decision in Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda and others (supra) nowhere throws any light on the question up for consideration in this matter. Where this Court finding serious tempering etc. in official record, if directs custodian of record, i.e., State Government to make inquiry into such tempering and take appropriate action against erring person, if any, obviously no one can plead that the Court must ignore and shut its eyes, even if it finds a blatant forgery in official record and should simply close the matter by consigning the record. On the contrary, as a constitutional obligation, this is thus responsibility of this Court that rule of law must prevail. If it finds that there is any violation of law, either it may go to make investigation and adjudicate itself or if the matter requires further investigation, direct for investigation by appropriate authority and further action by such authority in accordance with law. This Court has followed the second option which in my view was more appropriate and for the benefit of all so that every person, if proceeded against, would get opportunity of hearing in appropriate manner, if any proceeding is initiated against him/her.
10. Both these applications, in my view, are nothing but an attempt to frustrate result of criminal investigation conducted by C.B.C.I.D. in which it has found one Pradeep Kumar, apparently guilty of serious offences under I.P.C. as also Prevention of Corruption Act and for that purpose now sanction has been granted by Government for prosecution. This shows that the accused has been found prima facie guilty of committing serious offence. It is a fit case where this prosecution must proceed and reach its logical end expeditiously. If any person has actually committed such an offence, he must be punished suitably and adequately in accordance with law within a reasonable time. No Government official or any one should have an impression that whatever tinkering he feels, can be done in official record, and he would remain unchallenged by anyone. Every one should know that under the Constitution of India, no one is above law and every one is answerable for misdeeds, if any, committed by him. The motto and emblem of Indian Constitution "Satyameva Jayate" will always fly high and will have to be achieved so as to uphold the majesty of "Rule of Law".
11. I find no merit in these applications. Both the applications are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
