SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Gau) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (IMPHAL BENCH)
B. Lamare and Biplab Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Premikanta Singh
Vs.
State of Manipur and Ors.
W.P. (PIL) Nos. 7 and 27 of 2002
Decided On: 23.02.2005

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.S. Paonam, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Ashok Potsangbam, S. Suresh, N. Koteswar Singh and N. Ibotombi Singh, Advs.

Headnote:

PIL - Family Welfare Department - [Section 226 of the Constitution of India, Gauhati High Court Rules, Appendix-28] - The court dismissed the PIL filed by a practicing advocate, highlighting the need for self-imposed restraints towards the upsurge of resort to PIL in the slightest pretext. The court emphasized that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court agitating violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. The court found that the PIL was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes and thus not maintainable.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed a PIL alleging diversion of central fund by the Government of Manipur in the Family Welfare Department, leading to deprivation of the women and children of the State. However, the court found that the petitioner's primary concern was for the officers indicated in the petition, seeking abolition of certain posts and providing revised scales of pay to the officers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the PIL was not maintainable as it was a camouflage to foster personal disputes and lacked genuine public interest. The court emphasized the need for self-imposed restraints towards the upsurge of resort to PIL in the slightest pretext.

Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the PIL filed by the practicing advocate, the lack of genuine public interest, and the petitioner's locus standi to espouse the cause of the officers in the Family Welfare Department.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court agitating violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the PIL and awarded a cost of Rs. 2500 to be realized from the petitioner by the High Court Registry as per the provisions of the Gauhati High Court Rules. The interim order passed on 30.12.2002 stands automatically vacated.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by a practicing Advocate in the form of public interest litigation (PIL) with the following prayers:

It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships be pleased to:

(i) issue a rule nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction should not be passed;

(ii) to abolish the post of Director Family Wel-fare Services, Manipur, Additional Direcor-2 Nos; Joint Director-3-5 Nos. and Deputy Director SNOS as these 11 Nos. of posts have been posted beyond the norm so as to block diversion and missutillsation of programme money;

(iii) to sanction the scale of pay prescribed in column 5 of the statement under letter dated 2.2.2000 (Annexure-A/12) to the Media Officers to stall diversion and misutilisation of public money;

(iv) to direct for an enquiry by an independent body like Central Bureau of Investigation as to whether the posting of 11 Nos. of excess Gazetted Officers in Family Welfare Department, Manipur is permissible in the light of the instructions, policy decisions, staffing pattern etc. relating to Family Welfare Programme issued by the Government of India;

AND

(v) In the interim, pending disposal of the present case Family Welfare Department Manipur may be allowed to be run under the headship of Secretary/Commissioner in-charge of Family Welfare, Government of Manipur or to pass any appropriate order or orders which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the nature of the present case.

2. According to the Petitioner he has come to know during the course of his profession that the State Government has been misutilising the Central Fund and carrying out the centrally sponsored scheme at their whims and desire particularly in the State Family Welfare Department disregarding the mandatory guidelines as set out by the competent authority of the Government of India resulting into gross deprivation of valuable rights of under privileged women and children of the state apart from creating class legislation among the stuff who are the main power and responsible for the implementing of various such schemes.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the family welfare programme has been launched as a national programme throughout the country including the State of Manipur and for the purpose the Government of India has prescribed a national stuffing pattern to be adopted by the states strictly in accordance with their classification made on the basis of the population of the states concerned. The State Government are allowed to create posts towards implementation of family welfare programme at various levels in accordance with the national stuffing pattern and that too with the prior approval/sanction from the Government of India. The entire fund/expenditure on family welfare programme in the State of Manipur is also made by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and family Welfare. The release of fund is strictly in accordance with the approved pattern and the stuff employed at various levels should invariably be as approved by the Government of India. As per the stuffing pattern, the Government of India allowed to establish a State Family welfare Bureau, which is now known as Family Welfare Department at the State Headquarter and District Family Welfare Bureau at different district headquarters and other programme centres at various levels in the State of Manipur. The Petitioner has further indicated the divisions involving the State Family welfare Department and the District Family Welfare Bureau. In support of such contentions, the Petitioner has annexed as many as 11 documents marked as Annexures-A/1 to A/11.

4. The aforesaid facts as narrated in the writ petition are available in paragraph 1 to 10 of the writ petition. After such narration of the facts on the basis of the aforesaid documents, the Petitioner has indicated his real grievance from paragraph 11 onwards in the writ petition























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top