High Court · 2025

"Let the matter be taken up on Monday i.e. 30.5.2011, as payed by Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. In view of the fact that learned Chief Standing Counsel had apprised this Court earlier that the State Government is considering the matter about the competence of the Bhrashtachar Nivaran Commission to make an enquiry, we expect that till then the petitioner shall not be called in the enquiry." Writ Petition No. 6322 (M/B) of 2011 "Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.6 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite parties, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Sri B.K.Singh, learned counsel for the U.P.State Pharmacy Council. The issue in question is already engaging attention of the Court in Writ Petition No. 3930 of 2011 (M/B) wherein this Court has passed the order to the following effect :- "In view of the fact that learned Chief Standing Counsel had apprised this Court earlier that the State Government is considering the matter about the competence of the Bhrashtachar Nivaran Commission to make an inquiry, we expect that till then petitioner shall not be called in the inquiry." Learned Chief Standing Counsel has stated today that deliberations are going on between the Medical & Health department and Home department of the State Government and decision would be taken at the earliest as to whether the matter can be inquired into by Bhrashtachar Nivaran Commission or not. The issue in question is engaging attention of the Court as well as the State Government and large scale of bungling is alleged to have taken place by the petitioner, therefore, in these circumstances, the Government as opined by the Court may take a decision by 29.7.2011. In case decision is not taken by the above date then Principal Secretary Medical and Health and the Secretary Home, will appear before this Court. Connect with W.P.No. 3930(M/B) of 2011 and list on 29.7.2011. In view of the fact that the State Government is considering the matter about the competence of the Bhrashtachar Nivaran Commission to make an inquiry, we expect that till then petitioner shall not be called in the inquiry. ". Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 66359 of 2012 "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.S. Pipersenia, learned counsel appearing for the State - respondents. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 27th and 28th July, 2011, contained in Annexures No.2 and 3 to the writ petition, because the effect of these orders is to discontinue and cancel an enquiry being conducted by the Anti - Corruption Organization, in respect of allegations against members and officers of U.P. Pharmacy Council. A perusal of the impugned orders discloses that the matter of enquiry covers large number of issues and also allegations of corruption prevailing in the U.P. Pharmacy Council between 1990 till July 2008. Petitioner no.1 - Pharmacist Welfare Association has been pursuing the matter since long but the impugned orders also show that the decision is not to drop the enquiry altogether but to get it conducted in accordance with law by an officer or authority to which no objection can be raised on account of lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State has received instructions and produced before us Office Memorandum issued by the Medical Department of U.P. Government dated 31st December, 2012, which discloses that now the enquiry has been entrusted to one Mr. C.P. Singh, Special Secretary, Medical and Health, U.P. Government. Let a copy of that Office Memorandum be kept with the record. In view of the aforesaid instructions received by learned counsel for the State, now this Court is not required to decide any issue in particular because the State Government has itself decided to continue the enquiry which has a checkered history and appears to be pending since 1999. For about three years, a Commission consisting of a Judge of this Court, constituted under Section 45 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, conducted an enquiry but term of that Commission was not extended and huge records prepared by the said Commission are reportedly now lying with District Judge, Lucknow. Thereafter, the enquiry remained dormant but was ultimately handed over to Anti - Corruption Organization of U.P. State and when the organization issued notice to some of the officers found involved, an objection was raised on account of lack of jurisdiction and hence that has been discontinued by the impugned orders and enquiry has been entrusted to the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. We find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that such an enquiry which has to deal with vast materials and also with records collected in the previous two enquiries, the Special Secretary must be given additional hands and resources so that he may complete the enquiry for further action by the State Government in accordance with law, at an early date, preferably within six months. Hence, if the Special Secretary feels the requirement, he shall be at liberty to request the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., who shall ensure that extra personnels and materials are made available so that enquiry may be completed within six months. The Anti - Corruption Organization may not have jurisdiction to deal with cases of corruption against a statutory body such as U.P. Pharmacy Council but Home Secretary can always provide personnels and materials available with the Anti Corruption Organization to the Special Secretary so that the latter may complete the enquiry within the time indicated by this Court. The writ petition is disposed of. "

2. According to the applicant, the government order has been issued in compliance of the directions issued by this Court and that in utter disregard of those orders proceedings have been initiated against the applicant/petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. I have heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant and have perused the records.

4. The orders passed by the writ court merely directed consideration by the State Government as to whether the Anti- Corruption organization has jurisdiction to deal with cases of corruption against a statutory body. A government order is thereafter alleged to have been issued. In the event the applicant alleges disobedience of the government order, his remedy would lie elsewhere. A contempt petition would not lie for the nature of grievance raised in the present petition. Even otherwise, various civil and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the applicant/petitioner.

5. Filing of the present contempt petition is an attempt to browbeat the authorities of the State with the allegation of contempt only to seek benefit which otherwise may not be available to him. In such circumstance, the filing of present contempt petition is purposive. No contempt is otherwise made out. Dismissed, accordingly Order Date :- 7.4.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"Let the matter be taken up on Monday i.e. 30.5.2011, as payed by Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. In view of the fact that learned Chief Standing Counsel had apprised this Court earlier that the State Government is considering the matter about the competence of the Bhrashtachar Nivaran Commission to make an enquiry, we expect that till then the petitioner shall not be called in the enquiry." Writ Petition No. 6322 (M/B) of 2011 "Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.6 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite parties, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Sri B.K.Singh, learned counsel for the U.P.State Pharmacy Council. The issue in question is already engaging attention of the Court in Writ Petition No. 3930 of 2011 (M/B) wherein this Court has passed the order to the following effect :- "In view of the fact that learned Chief Standing Counsel had apprised this Court earlier that the State Government is considering the matter about the competence of the Bhrashtachar Nivaran Commission to make an inquiry, we expect that till then petitioner shall not be called in the inquiry." Learned Chief Standing Counsel has stated today that deliberations are going on between the Medical & Health department and Home department of the State Government and decision would be taken at the earliest as to whether the matter can be inquired into by Bhrashtachar Nivaran Commission or not. The issue in question is engaging attention of the Court as well as the State Government and large scale of bungling is alleged to have taken place by the petitioner, therefore, in these circumstances, the Government as opined by the Court may take a decision by 29.7.2011. In case decision is not taken by the above date then Principal Secretary Medical and Health and the Secretary Home, will appear before this Court. Connect with W.P.No. 3930(M/B) of 2011 and list on 29.7.2011. In view of the fact that the State Government is considering the matter about the competence of the Bhrashtachar Nivaran Commission to make an inquiry, we expect that till then petitioner shall not be called in the inquiry. ". Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 66359 of 2012 "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.S. Pipersenia, learned counsel appearing for the State - respondents. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 27th and 28th July, 2011, contained in Annexures No.2 and 3 to the writ petition, because the effect of these orders is to discontinue and cancel an enquiry being conducted by the Anti - Corruption Organization, in respect of allegations against members and officers of U.P. Pharmacy Council. A perusal of the impugned orders discloses that the matter of enquiry covers large number of issues and also allegations of corruption prevailing in the U.P. Pharmacy Council between 1990 till July 2008. Petitioner no.1 - Pharmacist Welfare Association has been pursuing the matter since long but the impugned orders also show that the decision is not to drop the enquiry altogether but to get it conducted in accordance with law by an officer or authority to which no objection can be raised on account of lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State has received instructions and produced before us Office Memorandum issued by the Medical Department of U.P. Government dated 31st December, 2012, which discloses that now the enquiry has been entrusted to one Mr. C.P. Singh, Special Secretary, Medical and Health, U.P. Government. Let a copy of that Office Memorandum be kept with the record. In view of the aforesaid instructions received by learned counsel for the State, now this Court is not required to decide any issue in particular because the State Government has itself decided to continue the enquiry which has a checkered history and appears to be pending since 1999. For about three years, a Commission consisting of a Judge of this Court, constituted under Section 45 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, conducted an enquiry but term of that Commission was not extended and huge records prepared by the said Commission are reportedly now lying with District Judge, Lucknow. Thereafter, the enquiry remained dormant but was ultimately handed over to Anti - Corruption Organization of U.P. State and when the organization issued notice to some of the officers found involved, an objection was raised on account of lack of jurisdiction and hence that has been discontinued by the impugned orders and enquiry has been entrusted to the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. We find some merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that such an enquiry which has to deal with vast materials and also with records collected in the previous two enquiries, the Special Secretary must be given additional hands and resources so that he may complete the enquiry for further action by the State Government in accordance with law, at an early date, preferably within six months. Hence, if the Special Secretary feels the requirement, he shall be at liberty to request the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., who shall ensure that extra personnels and materials are made available so that enquiry may be completed within six months. The Anti - Corruption Organization may not have jurisdiction to deal with cases of corruption against a statutory body such as U.P. Pharmacy Council but Home Secretary can always provide personnels and materials available with the Anti Corruption Organization to the Special Secretary so that the latter may complete the enquiry within the time indicated by this Court. The writ petition is disposed of. "

2. According to the applicant, the government order has been issued in compliance of the directions issued by this Court and that in utter disregard of those orders proceedings have been initiated against the applicant/petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. I have heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant and have perused the records.

4. The orders passed by the writ court merely directed consideration by the State Government as to whether the Anti- Corruption organization has jurisdiction to deal with cases of corruption against a statutory body. A government order is thereafter alleged to have been issued. In the event the applicant alleges disobedience of the government order, his remedy would lie elsewhere. A contempt petition would not lie for the nature of grievance raised in the present petition. Even otherwise, various civil and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the applicant/petitioner.

5. Filing of the present contempt petition is an attempt to browbeat the authorities of the State with the allegation of contempt only to seek benefit which otherwise may not be available to him. In such circumstance, the filing of present contempt petition is purposive. No contempt is otherwise made out. Dismissed, accordingly Order Date :- 7.4.2025 J. K. Dinkar JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench