1997 Supreme(Raj) 1524
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.P.Singh, P.K.Tewari, JJ.
N.K. Bairwa & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sripal Jain & ors. - Respondents
D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 812, 813, 1188, 1146, 1145, 1022, 1176, 1403 of 1997
Decided On : 25-12-1997
The principles of natural justice, such as the right to be heard, must be followed even in public interest litigation proceedings.
Headnote:
JUDGEMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
Sripal Jain, a social worker, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Rajasthan High Court alleging that several IAS, IPS, and RAS officers were occupying government accommodations despite owning their own houses in Jaipur. He sought the court's direction to recover the rent collected by these officers and initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. The State of Rajasthan, through the Chief Secretary, was the only opposite party. The officers against whom the orders were sought were not made parties to the writ petition, nor were the High Court Judges against whom orders had been passed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the PIL had become infructuous on the date of its decision as the government had already taken steps to recover the rent and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers. The court also held that the findings recorded against the officers were wholly illegal and were accordingly set aside. The court further held that the application for impleadment of Mr. B.S. Shekhawat, who had no interest in the matter, was legally not correct and was accordingly rejected. The court also set aside the order allowing the application for impleadment and rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the PIL had become infructuous on the date of its decision. 2. Whether the findings recorded against the officers were wholly illegal. 3. Whether the application for impleadment of Mr. B.S. Shekhawat was legally correct. 4. Whether the order allowing the application for impleadment should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A PIL may become infructuous if the government has already taken steps to address the grievances raised in the petition. 2. Findings recorded against individuals without giving them an opportunity to be heard are illegal. 3. An application for impleadment of a person with no interest in the matter is not legally correct. 4. An order allowing an application for impleadment without giving reasons is liable to be set aside.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the Civil Servants, the High Court Judges, and the State Government and the Housing Board. The impugned order dated 5th July, 1997 was set aside. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on respondent No.1 (Sripal Jain) and respondent No.2 (B.S. Shekhawat) for abusing the process of the court and deliberately bringing the Judges of the High Court in disrepute with malice intent.
JUDGMENT
1. :- We are sad to see the respondents' conduct in the Court. Their conduct, during the proceedings of appeals, had been extremely improper. This is not the end of the matter. After giving full opportunity of hearing, the judgment was reserved on 3.11.1997. The matter was subjudice even then they have gone to the media (Dainik Bhaskar, a daily newspaper dated 5.11.1997) making complaints against the court that the opportunity of hearing has not been given to them. Apart from this, a telegram followed by a letter was-sent in the name of one of us (M.P. Singh, J.) by respondent No.1 that in case he was not given an opportunity of hearing be will release the matter to press and make complaints to the President of India, Prime Minister, Chief justice of India and the Law Minister of India.
2. Does this action, of the respondent No.1, not amount to lowering the image of the judiciary in the eyes of public ? Does it not amount to interfering with the administration of justice ? Does it not amount to committing contempt of Court ?
3. The Press has already been given a general caution that the reporting of court proceedings which amount to disinformation among the public and erosion of the credibility of the judiciary, should not be done. Before any information is printed it is the duty of the press to verify the correctness of the same.
4. Ignoring their conduct, for the time being, we are deciding the matter on merit with a free mind.
5. The public interest writ petition was presented before the learned Single Judge on 3.6.1995. It was admitted on 20.9.1995. But the file was not sent to the office thereafter. In normal course after a case is admitted, it comes for final hearing in due course. If the matter is urgent or is of general importance, it can be listed for hearing out of turn after the Chief Justice passes an order for early hearing. It makes no difference whether it is a public interest litigation or otherwise.
6. Of course, a Judge is always free to dispose of the matter finally d the admission stage, if he 'so desires. After the admission of the writ petition without there being any order of the Chief Justice, the hearing of the case went on from time to time. Ultimately, on 26.2.1996, it was marked as part-heard
7. On 22.4.1996, an impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 the Civil Procedure Code was filed by Mr. B.S. Shekhawat, Advocate. It w allowed without recording any reason. He was allowed to be impleaded petitioner No.2, but the writ petition was not got amended. It was ultimately decided on 5.7.1997 treating it to be a non-admitted matter.
8. Since the respondents have made baseless complaints against court of not giving an opportunity of hearing, few facts from the order sheet of the Special Appeals may be incorporated in the Judgment.
9. The first special appeal against the impugned order was filed by N.K. Bairwa, who is a Civil Servant. It was admitted on 10.7.1997 and the operation of the order was stayed. Thereafter, other appeals were also filed. Similar orders were passed. All the appeals were listed for orders on 16.9.1997 in the supplementary cause list. A request was made by all the counsel for different appellants that the matter is of great urgency and undue publicity was being given by the media which is damaging the image of the institution, so they may be heard. But since there was no order of the Chief justice, we declined to dispose of the appeals finally. The bunch was order to be listed on 17.9.1997.
10. In the meantime, the Chief Justice passed an order on 16.9.1997 directing the matter to be disposed of by the Bench presided over by one of us (M.P. Singh, J.). Thus, the matter came up before this bench for final hearing on 17.9.1997.
11. On 17.9.1997 Mr. B. S. Shekhawat appeared and raised an objection that inspite of the fact that he was impleaded as a party in the writ petition he has not been made a party in Special Appeals and no notice was served on him. The Court, agreeing with th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
