Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
P.G. Agarwal and Aftab H. Saikia, JJ.
Bijay Prasad Sahu
Vs.
State of Manipur and Ors.
PIL No. 44 of 2006
Decided On: 27.06.2006
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Bijoy Prasad Sahu, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: S. Sarma and N. Dutta, Advs.
PIL should be used for redressing genuine public wrongs and injuries, and not for personal gain or private motives. Proper verification and compliance with rules and provisions are essential in PIL filings.
Headnote:
PIL - Allegations of cheating and misappropriation of public money against Advocate General of Manipur - Sections 403/420 I.P.C. - Gauhati High Court Rules - Order 19 Rule 3(1) Code of Civil Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a leading advocate, filed a PIL against the Advocate General of Manipur, alleging cheating and misappropriation of public money. The petitioner claimed that the Advocate General, as a senior advocate, prepared a false bill and obtained approval for payment from the government without serving all the required copies of documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the PIL was not maintainable as it was primarily a private interest litigation aimed at harming the reputation of the Advocate General. The court noted that the petitioner lacked locus standi and had not approached the appropriate authorities for redressal of grievances. The court also highlighted that the statements in the PIL were not properly sworn and did not comply with the relevant rules and provisions.
Issues: Lack of maintainability of the PIL, absence of locus standi, failure to approach appropriate authorities, and non-compliance with rules and provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that PIL should be used for redressing genuine public wrongs and injuries, and not for personal gain or private motives. It also stressed the importance of approaching the official authorities for redressal of grievances before filing a PIL. The court highlighted the need for proper verification and compliance with rules and provisions in PIL filings.
Final Decision: The PIL was dismissed at the motion stage due to lack of maintainability and absence of bonafide intention. No costs were awarded.
A.H. Saikia, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, Petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned State Counsel appearing for the State of Manipur/official Respondents as well as Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5.
2. This Public Interest Litigation (for short, 'the PIL') preferred by the Petitioner, a leading practising Advocate of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, has been directed basically against Respondent No. 5, the Advocate General of Manipur levelling pin point allegations of cheating and misappropriation of huge amount of money from the public exchequer of the Government of Manipur by filing false bill prepared on the instruction of the Respondent No. 5 in his capacity as a Senior Advocate at the relevant time.
3. The fundamental allegation in the PIL against the Respondent No. 5 is that in Writ Appeal No. 179/02 along with connected Misc. Case No. 128/2002 filed by the State of Manipur and others as Appellants through the Respondent No. 5, being the engaged Counsel on behalf of the Appellants, as per order dated 25.04.2002, a copy of the Memo of Appeal of the said writ appeal was served upon the Petitioner, being the learned Counsel appearing for as many as 320 Respondents in the said writ appeal as he represented all of them, being the writ Petitioners, before the original Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 253/2001, the judgment and order of which was assailed by the State of Manipur in the related W.A. No. 179/02.
4. It is alleged that without serving all those 320 copies of Memo of Appeal, though prepared by making Xerox copies, upon the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 11, the Counsel junior to Respondent No. 5, on instruction of the Respondent No. 5, prepared a bill for 320 copies of Memo of Appeal each of them containing 219 pages, preparation and conducting the Misc. Application for condonation of delay, charges for preparation of 320 copies of Misc. application each of them containing 53 pages, fees for senior Advocate and fees for junior Advocate etc., to the tune of an amount of Rs. 1,34,535/- and the Respondent No. 2, the Department of Higher Education, through the Commissioner/Secretary (Higher Education) Govt. of Manipur, Imphal without examining the bill, blindly, most probably, with collusion and conspiracy with Respondent No. 5, approved the bill and pursuant to such bill, Govt. of Manipur issued an order dated 03.03.2003 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,73,235/- was accorded for payment of outstanding bill to the engagement of Respondent No. 5 in connection with the filing, appearance and defence of several Court cases in the Principal Bench of Gauhati High Court. Such act is, according to the Petitioner, a glaring example of cheating and criminal misappropriation of public money punishable under Sections 403/420 I.P.C. Committed by a responsible officer of the Court, like the Respondent No. 5, in the capacity of senior Advocate and even further, it is pleaded, he is liable for commission of fraud against the High Court for not serving essential all the 320 copies of Memo of Appeal despite High Court's order dated 25.04.02.
5. In making out a case for the PIL, the Petitioner has pleaded in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the instant petition as follows:
2. That, the present Petitioner was the conducting Counsel of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 253 of 2001 filed before this Hon'ble Court, the judgment and order of which had been assailed by the State of Manipur, through the Respondent No. 5, before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at the Principal Seat at Guwahati, by filing W.A. No. 179 of 2002 and the connected Misc. case No. 128 of 2002.
3. That the Respondent No. 10 served a notice on 27.04.2002 to the present petition whereby notice of furnishing a copy of the Memo of Appeal No. 179 of 2002 along with the Misc. Case No. 128 of 2002 were furnished on behalf of the Respondents in the said writ appeal. In the said letter the Respondent No. 10
