‘न्यायालय बना भ्रष्टालय’ पुस्तक के लेखक की पीआईएल खारिज

उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार के नौ उर्जा कंपनियों के निदेशक मंडल में एक ही आदमी के कई पदों पर नियुक्ति के खिलाफ सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ नूतन ठाकुर और देवेन्द्र दीक्षित द्वारा दायर पीआईएल इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट की लखनऊ बेंच ने आज खारिज कर दी. राज्य सरकार के अधिवक्ता ने श्री दीक्षित द्वारा उच्चतर न्यायपालिका के कथित भ्रष्टाचार पर लिखित पुस्तक ''न्यायालय बना भ्रष्टालय'' के रोके जाने सम्बन्धी हाई कोर्ट का आदेश प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर जस्टिस इम्तियाज़ मुर्तजा तथा जस्टिस डी के उपाध्याय की बेंच ने पीआईएल खारिज कर दिया.

पीआईएल ने उर्जा विभाग के प्रमुख सचिव संजय अग्रवाल तथ आईएएस अफसर कामरान रिज़वी की ज्यादातर उर्जा कंपनियों में अध्यक्ष और प्रबंध निदेशक तथा अन्य कई लोगों के विभिन्न कंपनियों के निदेशक मंडल में नियुक्ति को उत्तर प्रदेश ऊर्जा सुधार अधिनियम 1999 तथा यूपी उर्जा नीति के विरुद्ध होने के आधार पर निरस्त करने की मांग की गयी थी.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. – 2

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 607 of 2014

Petitioner :- Nutan Thakur & Another [P.I.L.]

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Energy Deptt.Govt.Of U.P.Lucknow

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.Nutan Thakur (Inperson)

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Heard the petitioner no.1, Dr. Nutuan Thakur, in person.

Petitioner No.2 is not present.

Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the State that looking into the antecedents and credentials of petitioner no.2-Devendra Kumar Dixit, public interest litigation petition on his behalf should not be entertained.

To bring home his argument, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 23.02.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.1511 (M/B) of 2012 whereby direction was issued to immediately stop the publication, circulation and sale of the book titled "Nyayalay Bana Bhrastalay" written by Sri Devendra Kumar Dixit (petitioner no.2 herein). The said order was passed taking into consideration the allegations made in the aforesaid Writ Petition no. 1511 (M/B) of 2012 to the effect that the publication not only contains highly scandalous and derogatory remarks against the judiciary and Hon'ble Judges of this Court but also tends to destroy the respect of the judiciary as well as Hon'ble Judges of Higher Judiciary and damages the respect of institution and the sovereign, socialist democratic republic. It was also asserted in the said case that author and publisher had committed offence under Sections 153A, 153B and 292 of Indian Penal Code.
This Court after going through the contents of the said book written by the petitioner no.2 found that allegations made in the said writ petition were highly scandalous containing derogatory remarks against the judiciary and the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The relevant paragraph of the said order dated 23.02.2012 is being quoted below:-
"We have gone through the contents of the book annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition and find that the allegations made, are highly scandalous and contains derogatory remarks against the Judiciary and Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The allegations have the potential to disturb the respect of judiciary in the general public. "
This Court, thus, directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Lucknow to take immediate notice of the allegations made in the writ petition as well as the contents of the book and consider to take immediate appropriate action under Section 95 Cr.P.C. for stopping the publication, printing, sale and circulation of book. It was also provided that till appropriate action is taken by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, the publication, circulation and sale of the book shall remain suspended.
We have been taken through the affidavit filed in support of this petition wherein the petitioner no.1, who is the deponent of the said affidavit, has stated that she is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and further that she presents this petition/affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 as well.
On being enquired, the petitioner no.1 states that the word respondent no.2 has occurred in paragraph 1 of the said affidavit by mistake and it should be read as petitioner no.2.
In the affidavit, it has been stated that petitioner no.1 has been authorized by the petitioner no.2 to make deposition and present this petition/affidavit on his behalf as well.
Looking into the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1511 (M/B) of 2012 and also taking into consideration the contents of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2014
Renu/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *