Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 335
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.M. KHANWILKAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.
National Amnesty & Redemption Organisation International Trust
Versus
R.R. Patil, Home Minister, Government of Maharashtra & Others
Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 50 of 2011 With Criminal Application No. 28 of 2012
Decided on: 08-02-2013
For the Petitioner:Subhash Jha, i/b. M/s. Law Global, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. A.S. Pai, APP, R7, In person, Surel Shah, i/b. Nilesh V. Kalantri, Advocates.
For the Intervener:Ms. Racheeta Dhuru, Advocate.
Headnote:Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 - Rules 5(e), 7(b) and 11(b) - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL). - Held, since a PIL filed by petitioner is a motivated petition hence deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost to be paid by petitioner. The Public Interest Litigation cannot be allowed to be used to impair the trial of a criminal case regarding the MPSC Examination Scam or to influence the inquiry process in any manner. The decisions cited by the Appellant in the case of Citizens Organisation for Public Opinion v. State of Maharashtra and others 2011 All MR (Cri) 1535, in particular Paragraph 16 thereof and another decision in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402 : 2010 All SCR 879, in particular Paragraph 174 and the provisions of the “The Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010“, being Rule 5(e), 7(b) and 11(a) to contend that the petition should not only be dismissed but exemplary cost should be imposed on the petitioner.
While dismissing this petition, being motivated petition, Court impose cost quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner in State Treasury Account No. 0055 for Police Department, within two weeks from today, failing which, the Collector, Pune shall take steps to recover that amount from ‘D‘ who claims to be the President of the petitioner organisation, as arrears of land revenue, within eight weeks from today and remit that amount in the above said account. Compliance report be filed by the Collector, Pune, within the same time, failing which, the Registry shall place this matter under caption “Direction“.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of PIL. - High Court will not examine service matter in PIL however Court may consider whether reliefs claimed in PIL can be entertained. - It is a matter of record that the issue adverted to in the communication of high ranking official has been inquired into at the appropriate level. As in the previous Petition, even in the present Petition, the Court had made it clear that the issues raised in connection with taking departmental action, this Court will not examine the service matter in a Public Interest Litigation. For that purpose, Court may now straight away advert to the reliefs as claimed in this Petition; and consider whether such reliefs can be entertained in a Public Interest Litigation.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - PIL. - Public Interest Litigation, cannot be allowed to be used to impair trial of a criminal case regarding MPSC Examination Scam or to influence inquiry in any manner. - The next relief claimed by the petitioner is to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to appoint independent officer of rank not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to examine the tape recorded conversation of respondent No. 7 with underworld gangsters as referred to in the statement of Deputy Commissioner of Police Pradeep Sawant. This relief will have to be turned down as vexatious because of the stand taken by the Department that no such record of tape recorded conversation is in existence and available, as is noted in the evidence of the concerned witnesses examined for that purpose.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Relief claimed in PIL. - Since Order of Special Court, dismissing a private complaint filed against a Govt. servant, cannot be challenged by way of PIL hence relief claimed in PIL not maintainable. - It is noticed that the Special Court, dealing with the private complaint filed by one Avinash Tukaram Sanas, one of the accused in the said MPSC Examination Scam, has already dismissed the said private complaint vide order dated 6th November, 2004, which order of the Special Court has been confirmed by Court, by a separate order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 974 of 2005, filed by the original complainant. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, in his report/order dated 28th October, 2004 has recorded his subjective satisfaction that no prima facie case was made out from the material placed before him to indicate the involvement of respondent No. 7 in the commission of alleged offence, under the provisions of the MCOCA. In that view of the matter, the Special Court concluded that the private complaint cannot be proceeded further against respondent No. 7, in respect of the said offence, for want of sanction. In any case, that order cannot be permitted to be challenged by way of Public Interest Litigation. The subtle attempt of the petitioner is to keep the accusation made against respondent No. 7 pending for reasons best known to them. That would inevitably help the accused named in the MPSC Examination Scam. Any observation made with regard to the factual matrix referred to in the present Petition would inevitably help the accused persons named in the said offence. Court is more than convinced that the present Petition is a subterfuge and an attempt to create gloss in the guise of Public Interest Litigation by using the screen of so called, non-government organisations.
It is intriguing as to how these non-government organisations got access to voluminous official documents filed along with the successive Public Interest Litigation, running into around 500 pages and incidentally, filing the Petitions through the same Advocate. The banner of non-government organisations is being used to invite finding of this Court which may be useful for the defence of the accused persons in the said MPSC Examination Scam case, which is pending trial, by attacking the integrity of the respondent No. 7 who was the Investigating Officer of that case and was ordered to conduct the investigation under the supervision of the Court. It is a matter of record that even the Apex Court expressed displeasure for unilaterally disrobing respondent No. 7 from the charge of Investigating Officer of the said case and the Department was compelled to allow the respondent No. 7 to take the said investigation to its logical conclusion by filing of nine charge-sheets by him in that case. As aforesaid, the order passed by the Special Court, rejecting the private complaint of Avinash Sanas and that order having been upheld by Court, in a separate Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 974 of 2005, relief in prayer clause (b) will have to be stated to be rejected, even on that count.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation. - Since issue raised in PIL in connection with prosecution of Investigating Officer in MPSC Examination scam inquired into at departmental level hence said issue cannot be examined in PIL. - As regards prayer clause (d), the direction sought against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 is to file charge sheet to add nexus of respondent No. 7 with criminal underworld syndicates, as is revealed from the tape recorded conversion with underworld leader, which is available with Crime Branch, Mumbai. As mentioned earlier, if the de-novo inquiry is in progress, the question of examining the issue raised by the petitioner, much less by way of Public Interest Litigation is unwarranted. Court however, place on record the stand taken by the Department that tape recorded conversation is not existing and available, as is evident from the statement of the concerned witnesses, who were examined even by the Special Court.
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. This is second Public Interest Litigation filed with regard to the same subject matter, through the same Advocate but, by another so called non-government organisation. The First Writ Petition was filed by Press Group of Maharashtra being Criminal Writ Petition No. 1693 of 2009 for more or less similar reliefs. The reliefs claimed in that Writ Petition read thus:-
“(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to conduct thorough investigation in all complaints filed against Sudhakar Pujari and such investigation agency may be directed to submit their report within such reasonable time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court and such investigation be monitored by this Hon'ble Court so as to ensure effective and objective investigation in the matter;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and 11 to ensure forthwith seizure of all the necessary and requisite documentary evidence which are susceptible of being tampered with by Sudhakar Pujari;
(c) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 11 to take such disciplinary action on the administrative side against Sudhakar Pujari for his having indulged in illegal and nefarious activities and to take all such actions which may be necessary so as to ensure that in the process of investigation and/or enquiry, he does not directly or indirectly trigger pressure/influence, either on the investigating agency/officers and/or those involved in conducting enquiry against him on the administrative side;
(d) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation and/or any other investigating agency as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to conduct thorough investigation in the complaints filed by Dr. B.S.Kadam and others against Sudhakar Pujari and to take all such action, including that of arrest/detention, seizure of bank Accounts, seizure of documents, bank lockers, and so also conducting deep probe into the assets movable and/or immovable of Sudhakar Pujari, and to submit their report to this Hon'ble Court and upon perusal of such report this Hon'ble Court may take such action and/or issue such direction as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(e) that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to place Sudhakar Pujari who has been recently reinstated as police inspector at Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai under suspension during the investigation/9 departmental inquiries being conducted against him;
(f) any other further order and/or direction be given as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
3. The above said Writ Petition was disposed of on 3rd December, 2009 by this Court. The order reads thus:-
“P.C.
Learned APP appearing for the State submits that they have already served a charge sheet upon Respondent No. 20, who is expected to file reply to the chargesheet within 15 days and they will try their best to conclude departmental inquiry expeditiously provided the said respondent cooperates.
2. We have no reason, at this stage, to say that the said Respondent No. 20 will not cooperate in the matter, because department itself has served the chargesheet upon him after a considerable delay. Be that as it may, we do not see any reason to discuss the merits or otherwise of any contentions raised before us in the present Writ Petition. The State shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.”
4. The present Petition has been filed on the assertion that the Petitioner, in the former Petition (PIL), did not pursue the matter further. This assertion is found in Paragraph 48 of the Petition.
5. The circumstances giving
