The Allahabad High Court has asked the income tax (IT) department to submit a reply regarding the I-T returns filed by Vasudeo Yadav and his family members in connection with societies (which in turn are running educational institutions) being run by them. Yadav is the Director (Secondary Education) and also the honorary Chairman of the UP Board.
The court fixed February 25 as the next date of hearing. The court passed the order on a PIL filed by Avinash Rai, a farmer from Ghazipur, who has demanded that an independent agency should inquire into the assets of Yadav and his family members, who are running educational institutions.
The PIL was filed on the basis of material collected by the petitioner after reports appeared in the newspapers a few months ago that the government was considering granting extension to Yadav for two more years.
Yadav, who also holds charge of Director (Basic Education), is supposed to retire in March. The government is planning to give him an extension of two years.
Passing the order Thursday, a division bench of Justices Sunil Ambwani and Dinesh Gupta said: “The I-T department will also submit its reply on the material brought to this court regarding the returns filed by respondent No. 8 (Yadav) and the registration of societies running the institutions, which have been established in the name of his wife and children.”
The court further directed that the state government “will, at the time of considering the extension of services of respondent No. 8, take into account the material and the allegations, which have been made in this writ petition.”
The division bench also said: “Prima facie, it appears that the entire education department has been monopolised by a single person, who has also established educational institutions in the name of his wife and children, we propose to consider the objections at the time of hearing of the writ petition.”
The court made this observation, as the Additional Advocate General, representing the state government and Yadav, raised objections to the maintainability of the petition on two grounds that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials and also that the source of information supplied in the petition has not been disclosed.
Nand Lal Pandey, counsel for the petitioner, said: “Our main prayer is that his assets, which appear to be disproportionate to his known sources of income, should be inquired into by an independent agency. Also, the state government should take action against him for allegedly helping some of his favourite officials with plum postings.”
The court noted that a particular officer, who appeared to be Yadav’s favourite, had held several posts, including DIOS (Allahabad), Principal (DIET), Additional Director (Secondary Education) and now Joint Director (Secondary Education) —- all postings being in Allahabad.