Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench on Thursday granted major relief to IAS officer Abhishek Prakash, quashing the vigilance inquiry initiated against him in connection with a complaint alleging irregularities in the processing of an industrial project.Justice Rajeev Singh allowed Prakash’s writ petition and quashed the orders issued by govt on March 20 and March 28, 2025, along with the entire proceedings of open vigilance inquiry .The case arose from a complaint lodged by an official of a company on Mar 20, 2025. 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. 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. He subsequently learnt that the project was awaiting information relating to land availability and other issues from YEIDA and UPPCL. . 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. 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. 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.
