Back
1997 Supreme(Sikk) 1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
M. SENGUPTA
NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
W. P. 51 Of 1996
Decided On : March 5, 1997
A.K.Shrivastava, J.B.Pradhan, Kailash Kanungo, N.B.Kharga, N.K.BHANDARI, O.P.Varma, S.P.WANGDI, S.S.RAY
The Governor's power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is discretionary and cannot be mandated by the Court.
Headnote:
PREMATURE WRIT PETITION - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - GOVERNOR'S DISCRETION - LOCUS STANDI - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - MALA FIDE - ARBITRARINESS - BAD FAITH - INVESTIGATION - CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - VAGUENESS - AFFIDAVIT - DISMISSAL IN LIMINE: 1. A writ petition seeking a direction to the Governor to accord sanction for prosecution of the Chief Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is premature where no complaint has been lodged with any authority and investigation has not commenced. 2. The Governor's power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is discretionary and cannot be mandated by the Court. 3. Mala fide, arbitrariness, or bad faith on the part of the Governor must be pleaded and proved to justify judicial review of the Governor's decision. 4. The petitioner lacks locus standi to file a writ petition on behalf of the general public without a genuine concern and a clean objective. 5. Public Interest Litigation should not be used to feed ancient grudges or political vendettas. 6. Investigation into allegations against the Chief Minister can be conducted by normal agencies unless there is evidence of improper investigation by the regular police hierarchy. 7. Prayers in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution must be specific and precise, and the petitioner's affidavit must be in order. 8. A writ petition that is premature, lacks locus standi, and is vague in its prayers will be dismissed in limine without any order as to costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Chief Minister, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Governor to accord sanction for prosecution of the present Chief Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging various acts of corruption. The petitioner also sought a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petition was premature as no complaint had been lodged with any authority and investigation had not commenced. The Court further held that the Governor's power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was discretionary and could not be mandated by the Court. The Court also found that there was no mala fide, arbitrariness, or bad faith on the part of the Governor. Additionally, the Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to file the writ petition on behalf of the general public without a genuine concern and a clean objective. The Court also dismissed the prayer for a direction to the CBI to investigate the allegations, finding that there was no evidence of improper investigation by the regular police hierarchy.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was premature? 2. Whether the Governor's power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was discretionary and could be mandated by the Court? 3. Whether there was mala fide, arbitrariness, or bad faith on the part of the Governor? 4. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition on behalf of the general public? 5. Whether the prayer for a direction to the CBI to investigate the allegations was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition seeking a direction to the Governor to accord sanction for prosecution of the Chief Minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is premature where no complaint has been lodged with any authority and investigation has not commenced. 2. The Governor's power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is discretionary and cannot be mandated by the Court. 3. Mala fide, arbitrariness, or bad faith on the part of the Governor must be pleaded and proved to justify judicial review of the Governor's decision. 4. The petitioner lacks locus standi to file a writ petition on behalf of the general public without a genuine concern and a clean objective. 5. Public Interest Litigation should not be used to feed ancient grudges or political vendettas. 6. Investigation into allegations against the Chief Minister can be conducted by normal agencies unless there is evidence of improper investigation by the regular police hierarchy.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) IT is a petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ. The warring parties are two Chief Ministers, past and present, keeping the Governor of State in between.
( 2 ) SHRI N. B. Bhandari is the petitioner. He served the State as its Chief Minister for about fifteen years with a break for a very small period. He is at present the President of an important political party of the State. Shri Bhandari lost the battle of strength in the State politics and had to lose his Chief Ministership and to remain content only with a membership in the State Assembly.
( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3, Shri Pawan Kumar Chamling served Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari's ministry for sometime and thereafter love between them was lost. He floated or joined a new party and successfully led his party in the Assembly Elections of 1994 and became the leader of the present cabinet.
( 4 ) WE may take judicial notice of the fact that immediately after the last Parliamentary Election which was unsuccessfully contested by Shri Bhandari, these two political personalities of the State started scandalising each other through various media. This Court had nothing to do with those statements and counter-statements, but the quarrel has been brought to the arena of this Court in the form of the present writ petition by Shri Bhandari.
( 5 ) IN the writ petition Shri Bhandari referred to a series of actions and events alleged to have been committed by Shri Chamling directly or indirectly, reaping harvest for his own benefit and causing damage to the coffer of the State. Shri Bhandari contends that he made a representation to the Governor of the State (respondent No. 4) referring to such acts of corruption indulged in by Shri Chamling, the present Chief Minister. It was on 15-6-1996. Shri Bhandari waited for sometime and as no action appeared to him to have been taken by the Governor on the allegations, Shri Bhandari sent a notice demanding justice to the Governor on 3-12-1996 requesting him to accord sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute Shri Chamling. Shri Bhandari gave the Governor 24 hours time to send a reply to him about the decision of the Governor. Since he did not get any reply nor any indication about action taken by the Governor, he came up to this Court with the instant writ petition on 10-12-1996.
( 6 ) THE main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the present Chief Minister is corrupt to the extremity and the State exchequer is not safe in his hands and that he should be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner has sought for a mandate on the Governor to accord necessary sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the Chief Minister and, in the alternative, a direction on the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate into the allegations against the present Chief Minister.
( 7 ) THE submission of the petitioner is that the writ petition should be admitted straightway and final decision of the Court may be passed after going through the submissions made by the principal respondents (Chief Minister and the Governor) by way of filing affidavits. The respondents including the Central Bureau of Investigation (respondent No. 5) controvert this proposition and submit that this writ petition being frivolous in nature and having been filed with an idea of causing harassment to the persons in power should be nipped into the bud. Decision, reported in AIR 1971 SC 333, Gyan Chand v. State of Haryana has been referred to by the petitioner. We regret, the principle laid down in the decision above noted cannot have any application as the facts involved in that case differ widely from the fact of the case under our study. The High Courts in exercise of their power under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution are to entertain writ petitions at the very initial stage only when
