High CourtsDivision Bench(2013) 01 AHC CK 0257

Om Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 11 January 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surendra Singh, J · Amar Saran, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21013 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 273 words
1.

The Investigating Officer is present and a counter affidavit has been filed. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that on 12.12.2010 the investigation was concluded and the matter has been forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. Lucknow for grant of sanction, but no orders have been passed on the said application upto the present date. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that 25 reminders have been sent but there is no response of the said officer or the Forest Department.

2.

It is a matter of corruption u/s 409, 120-B I.P.C. and 13(C) prevention of Corruption Act. It is very unfortunate that a matter of such gravity about which the Apex Court as well as this Court has taken serious notice repeatedly, the matter has been kept hanging for such a prolonged period of time.

3.

List this case on 22.2.2013.

4.

On that date either appropriate orders may be passed on the application for sanction or the sanctioning authority aforesaid be present before this Court to explain the reason for not considering the application for sanction and also why sanction should not be deemed to have been granted as the matter is lingering since 12.12.2010.

5.

Copy of the counter affidavit has been given to the petitioner, who may file a rejoinder affidavit by the next date. We are not satisfied that no coercive action has been taken when there were clear allegations against the 10 accused persons against whom the report u/s 13(C) was prepared about two years back. The Investigating Officer may also submit an explanation about this lapse on the next date.