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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6599

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, GAJENDRA SINGH, JJ
Balram – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 5222/2024



Advocates:
Rahul Sethi,Advocate General

Public Interest Litigations concerning service matters are not maintainable, as established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need to filter out frivolous petitions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - The petition was filed against the inaction of the State in initiating proceedings against a respondent following a departmental enquiry. The court emphasized that PILs concerning service matters are not maintainable, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273. (Paras 5, 12)

(B) Maintainability of PIL - The court reiterated that PILs should not be entertained when they pertain to personal grievances or service matters, as established in Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363. (Paras 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a service provider in the office of the Sub-Registrar, alleged manipulation of registries and sought action against a colleague. Previous petitions led to a contempt ruling, but no action was taken against the respondent despite findings of guilt.

Findings of Court:
The court found the petition to be non-maintainable as it involved a service matter, thus dismissing it.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petition constituted a valid Public Interest Litigation or was merely a personal grievance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petition was not maintainable as it fell within the realm of service matters, which are not suitable for PILs, emphasizing the need to filter out frivolous petitions.

Result: Petition dismissed in limine.

ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent/State in initiating proceedings against respondent No.6 pursuant to the departmental enquiry.

2. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen of the country and is a permanent resident of Tehsil Garoth, District Mansaur. He is a service provider in the office of respondent No.6/Sub-Registrar Stamp at Garoth. Petitioner is a social activist and a vigilant citizen having social status in the society.

3. The facts of the present case is that the petitioner along with one Shri Gopal Singh Chauhan filed W.P.No. 7364/2016 (PIL) before this Court alleging manipulation in the original registries of Sub-Registrar, Garoth, District Mandsaur and fake manipulated copies being affixed in place of originals. On 12.01.2017, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed respondent No.2/Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Duty, Bhopal to issue necessary instructions to the Enquiry Officer to expedite the enquiry conclude the same within a period six months. Thereafter, when no action was taken by the respondent No.2, petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 2582/2018. In the contempt proceedings, the respondent No.2 filed reply on14.03.2019 and the petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.07.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in case he is still aggrieved. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after being found guilty, as per reply of respondent No.2, no action has been taken against respondent No.6 inspite of repeated representations by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

4. In the present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (A) The present petition by way of pro bono publico may kindly be allowed with heavy cost and appropriate writ, direction or order be issued in accordance with law against the respondents in the interest of public at large.

(B) To direct the initiation of a separate judicial enquiry against the office of Respondents No. 2 and 3 in the matter and report may kindly be summoned before this Hon'ble Court and after the perusal of report, appropriate direction may kindly be passed.

(C) To direct the respondents to take action against R.S.Baghel in terms of enquiry report date 14.03.2019 within a specified period of time.

(D) To direct the respondents to complete enquiry upon the pending complaints including that filed by the petitioner within a specified time period.

(E) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

5. At the outset, Shri Anand Soni, learned Addl. Advocate General and Shri Sajid Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that this public interest litigation is not maintainable, since the issue relates to service matter and as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273 , wherein it has been held that "in service matters, PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the so called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PIL, official documents are being annexed without indicating as to how petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession, It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity, the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force

          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
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top