2014 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 23
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, ACJ, R.P. DHOLARIA, J
NIMISHKUMAR MANHARLAL SHAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 94 of 2013
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR M.J. MEHTA
For the Respondents: MR KAMAL B. TRIVEDI, MS SANGEETA VISHEN, MR DEVANG VYAS
Public Interest Litigations must substantiate claims with more than mere reliance on CAG reports.
Headnote:{'statute_analysis': 'The court references provisions relating to Public Interest Litigation and examines the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) in the financial oversight of state actions. The findings in prior judgments underscore that a PIL should not solely rely on a CAG report without additional supporting evidence.', 'facts_of_case': "The petition alleges that the second respondent company caused a loss of ₹10,000 Crores to the public exchequer during exploration work. The petitioner sought a declaration of illegality of the company's actions and requested an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.", 'findings_of_court': 'The court found that the petition was not maintainable, as it was solely based on the CAG report without further substantiating evidence or inquiry. Public interest litigations require rigorous substantiation and responsibility from the counsel involved.', 'issues': 'The court framed the issue surrounding the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation, particularly regarding reliance on the CAG report as the sole basis for the claim.', 'ratio_decidendi': 'The court emphasized that public interest litigations must not be filed merely on CAG reports, reiterating the duty of counsel to ensure the seriousness and basis of such petitions. A lack of additional evidence renders the case non-viable.', 'result': 'For the aforesaid reasons, since the instant writ petition has been filed only on the basis of CAG Report, therefore, we dismiss this writ petition as not maintainable.'}
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel holds responsibility in maintaining litigations. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. basis of claims must extend beyond cag reports. (Para 2) |
| 3. judgments emphasize substantive evidence in public interest cases. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. final dismissal of writ petition for lack of maintainability. (Para 6) |
JUDGEMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr. M.J. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.3.
2. This petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs :-
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the Respondent No.2 Company in causing huge loss of about Rs.10,000 Crores to the public exchequer during the exploration and development work of KG Block is bad, illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to hand over the investigation of the present case to Central Bureau of Investigation and penal actions may be taken against the beneficiaries and the decision making authorities related with the present case and further be pleased to direct the investigating agency to submit progress report in that regard before this Hon'ble Court.”
3. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan v. State of Gujarat and others, in Writ Petition ( Public Interest Litigation ) No.97 of 2013 decided on 4.10.2013 has held in paragraph 37 that a Public Interest Litigation should not be filed solely on the basis of report of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (for short 'CAG') without anything more. Paragraph 37 of the said judgment is extracted below :-
“37. Before parting, we deem fit to observe that a petition in public interest should be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and inquiry. A public interest petition should not be filed solely on the basis of the report of the CAG without anything more. It is a different thing if report of the CAG is placed in support of other materials relied upon by the petitioner in support of his case. In the present case except one document i.e. the report of the CAG on the subject nothing has been placed on record. In such circumstances, any counsel appearing in a public interest litigation being a member of a noble profession owes a duty to draw the attention of the petitioner filing a public interest litigation to the issues where controversy itself is no longer res integra. A public interest litigation is not in the nature of an adversarial litigation but is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the signature tune of the Constitution. In the matters of public interest, we feel that the counsel appearing for the petitioner owes a higher degree of responsibility before accepting the matters relating to an issue, which requires no adjudication. It not only wastes precious time of the Court but thereby prevents the Court from deciding other deserving cases.”
4. This judgment of the Division Bench has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan v. State of Gujarat and others (2014) 4 SCC 156 wherein in paragraphs 10 to 14, the Apex Court has held as under :-
“10. The CAG is a key figure in the system of parliamentary control of finance and is empowered to delve into the economy, ef
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
