Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8829 of 2021
Petitioner :- Yash Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Pratap Singh,Alok Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Swapnil Kumar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Sanction order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Managing Director, UPSIDC (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for re- investigation by the respondent no. 2 of the case arising out of FIR No. 788/2011.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to stay the trial against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report dated 10.08.2011, registered as Case Crime No. 1412/2011, under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition)."
At the very outset, Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, at this stage, as in the present matter, cognizance has already been taken by the trial court on the charge-sheet, which is appended as Annexure No.22 to the writ petition at page 130. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon paragraph 13 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India And Another (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 532, as such, he submits that the cause for filing of the writ petition no more survives. He also submits that even in the said case, the Apex Court has accorded leave to the appellant to raise the issue of invalidity of sanction order before the trial judge. Such course is in accord with the decision of the Apex Court in Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1.
Once an objection is being raised by learned counsel for the respondent, we have occasion to peruse the material as has been placed before us as well as judgments passed by the Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar (supra) and Parkash Singh Badal(supra). For ready reference, paragraph 13 of the Dinesh Kumar (supra) is reproduced herein below.
"13. In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case, now since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by the trial judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the trial court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and not unjustified."
In view of the aforesaid dictum, having regard to the facts of the present case since now cognizance has already taken by the trial court as indicated above, once the Court has declined to interfere in the impugned Sanction order then learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he does not want to press the writ petition and the same may be dismissed as not pressed with the liberty to approach the appropriate court.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid leave.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 A.K.Srivastava