The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench provided a significant ruling on Thursday, quashing a vigilance inquiry against IAS officer Abhishek Prakash. This inquiry was initiated following a complaint that alleged irregularities in the processing of an industrial project. The court’s decision brings relief to Prakash, who faced scrutiny over the claims made against him.
Court Overturns Government Orders in Vigilance Inquiry
Justice Rajeev Singh has ruled in favor of Prakash by allowing his writ petition, which led to the annulment of government orders issued on March 20 and March 28, 2025. The ruling also quashed the entire proceedings of the open vigilance inquiry related to these orders. This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing investigation, impacting the scrutiny of governmental actions.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by an official of a company on Mar 20, 2025. A significant development came when company official Biswajit Dutta, in an affidavit filed before the HC in the case concerning Nikant Jain, stated that the complaint dated March 20, 2025, had been made due to misunderstanding. The court held that once the complainant himself had subsequently admitted that the complaint was made due to a misunderstanding, the very basis of the proceedings founded on that complaint stood extinguished.
You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Lucknow | Silver Rate in Lucknow | Bank Holidays in Lucknow | Public Holidays in Lucknow | Lucknow AQI | Weather in Lucknow | Petrol Price in Lucknow | Diesel Price in Lucknow | CNG Price in Lucknow | LPG Price in Lucknow Stay updated with the latest Lucknow news. The complainant alleged that a senior official of Invest UP had provided him the mobile number of Nikant Jain and asked him to contact Jain for approval of the project by the empowered committee and the cabinet. The complainant further alleged that Jain had demanded five per cent of the project cost. An FIR was lodged against Jain, while departmental proceedings were initiated against Prakash. He subsequently learnt that the project was awaiting information relating to land availability and other issues from YEIDA and UPPCL. . Mehrotra argued that initiating a vigilance inquiry on the basis of a complaint unsupported by an affidavit and without obtaining the approval of the State Vigilance Committee in accordance with the prescribed procedure, was contrary to the relevant govt orders. Chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh, assisted by standing counsel Aniruddh Singh, opposed the petition. The bench observed that the requirement of an affidavit accompanying complaints against Group-A officers had been prescribed to protect honest officers from harassment on the basis of false complaints. Download the TOI App.
Senior advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for Prakash, pointed out that the complainant himself had subsequently filed an affidavit before the HC stating that the complaint had arisen out of a misunderstanding.