Orissa High Court
Niranjan Tripathy vs State Of Orissa & Others ... Opp. Parties on 8 December, 2011
Author: I.Mahanty
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, I.Mahanty
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.26393 of 2011
In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
_________
Niranjan Tripathy ... Petitioner
- versus -
State of Orissa & others ... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. Srinivas Mohanty,
S.Moharana, S.Routray,
N.Tripathy & S.R.Mohanty
For Opp. Parties : None
____________
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR V. GOPALA GOWDA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I. MAHANTY, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing - 24.11.2011 : Date of Disposal - 08.12.2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V.Gopala Gowda, C.J. This writ application in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation is filed by a practicing Advocate who has put in five years
of practice at the Bar seeking for an inquiry by the Central Bureau
of Investigation to trace out the truth regarding allotment of plots
out of Discretionary Quota as to (i) whether before allotment out of
the Discretionary Quota the eligibility of the beneficiaries was to be
enquired into; (ii) whether individual statement of the beneficiaries
2
are recorded for just requirement of the plot necessitating an
allotment from Discretionary Quota by the Chairman; and (iii)
whether the beneficiaries of the plots in question are required to be
treated separately beyond the rules made for the general public as
a whole, urging various facts and furnishing a list of sitting Judges
and former Judges of this Court, former Judges of the Supreme
Court, IAS, IPS and IFS Officers with their names and address by
producing Annexure-1 along with a list of plots at Bidanasi project
area granted under the Discretionary Quota during the period
2000-2007, as well as, enclosing certain extracts from the websites
of Outlook India.com dated December 6, 2004 under the heading
"Salt Lake Scam" and extract from The Sunday Indian dated
September 14, 2011, The Telegraph dated November 9, 2010 under
Annexure-2 series. Annexure-3 series is the extract of the The
Frontline magazine dated May 10-23 2003 with reference to a
former Delhi High Court Judge Shamit Mukherjee.
2. A further affidavit has been filed on 31 October, 2011,
sworn to by the petitioner by annexing thereto, the extract of
documents under Annexures-4 and 5, i.e., the extract of the
Procedure for allotment of assets of Bhubaneswar Development
Authority" and the "Further Information Allotment of
plot/Commercial plot/Institutional at Bidanasi Project Area from
the year 2004 to 2007".
3
3. Apart from the above, the petitioner has filed Misc.
Case No.17846 of 2011 on 16th November, 2011 with a prayer to
call for the records from the Cuttack Development Authority and
Bhubaneswar Development Authority (hereinafter called "CDA"
and "BDA" respectively) and direct them not to allow further
construction on the plots made available under the Discretionary
Quota and further sought for orders to dissociate all the favoured
personalities from being directly or indirectly involved in the affairs
of the cities of Cuttack and Bhubaneswar including IAS or IPS
officers, pending disposal of the above writ application and further
to pass orders to keep the favoured Hon'ble sitting Ministers off the
portfolio pending disposal of the writ petition too, and pass any
other and/or further order/orders as deemed fit and proper under
the circumstances.
The petitioner sought to annex thereto Annexure-6
downloaded from the website of the Open magazine, dated 5
November, 2011. Annexure-7 to this Misc. Case relates to
Information Allotment of plot/Commercial plot/Institutional at
Bidanasi Project Area, from the year 2004 to 2007," which is the
repetition of Annexure-5 filed in the additional affidavit dated 31st
October, 2011. The documents produced at Annexures-8, 9, 10
and 11 are claimed to be copies of the applications purportedly to
have been sent by certain sitting Hon'ble Judges and former
4
Judges of this Court seeking for allotment of sites. Annexure-12
series are copies of news clippings of the local daily The Samaja
dated November 13, 2011.
4. The petitioner has further filed another Misc. Case
No.17941 of 2011 on 21.11.2011 seeking leave of this Court to
withdraw the above writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh writ
petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation in accordance
with the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010
(hereinafter called "the PIL Rules, 2010").
5. The following issues arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the writ petition, which is filed by a
practicing Advocate, is a genuine public
interest litigation petition?
(ii) Whether the public interest litigation is filed by
the petitioner following the procedure
prescribed in the Orissa High Court Public
Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 framed
pursuant to the direction given by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal & others, AIR 2010
SC 2550?
(iii) Whether the petitioner has made out a case for
entrusting the matter to the CBI for inquiry
5
and for grant relief as prayed for in the writ
petition, additional affidavit and in the Misc.
Cases No.17844? and
(iv) Whether the Misc. Case No.17941 of 2011 is
filed with the necessary bona fide seeking leave
of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with
liberty to file a fresh one?
6. Before delving into the facts pleaded, in order to
answer the aforesaid issues that fall for our consideration, it would
be very useful to refer to certain orders passed in the present case
for the purpose of examining the genuineness/bona fide on the
part of the petitioner in filing the present writ petition, additional
affidavit as well as Misc. Cases along with the documents referred
to supra.
7. On 29.9.2011, this mater was listed for hearing on the
question of admission. After hearing Mr Srinivas Mohanty, learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following order:
Order dated 29.9.2011
"Heard learned counsel fo the petitioner and
learned Government Advocate.
Before issuing any notice, we direct the learned
counsel for the petitioner to produce the discretionary
quota regulations/guidelines, if any, along with other
necessary documents in support of his case.
6
List this matter after the ensuing Puja
Holidays.
Since we have not issued any notice in this
matter, we direct the parties not to go to the
Press/Electronic Media for publication of any type of
news item with relation to this case."
(Underlined for emphasis)
8. In spite of the observations made in the said order and
during the pendency of the present proceedings, the allotment of
Discretionary Quota to various persons was widely published both
in the electronic media as well as print media. Certain extracts of
such press coverage have been filed by the petitioner by way of
additional affidavit as Annexures-6 to 12 to Misc. Case No.17846
of 2011. This fact by itself clearly exhibits that the real object
behind filing of this writ petition is nothing but getting publicized
through media by maligning various constitutional functionaries
and others.
9. On 16.11.2011, when the matter was again listed, the
petitioner filed Misc. Case No.17846 of 2011. Reliance was placed
on a further affidavit of 31st October, 2011 and also on the
averments made in Misc. Case No.17846 of 2011. After hearing
learned counsel, to the query of the Court as to whether the
petitioner had complied with the provisions of the Orissa High
Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, learned counsel for
7
the petitioner pleaded ignorance of the said Rules and stated that
he intends to comply with the same and, hence for such purpose,
requested for adjournment of the matter. Adjournment was allowed
and the matter was fixed to the next week.
10. Thereafter on the next date i.e. on 24.11.2011,
instead of complying with the direction dated 16.11.2011 and
taking steps to bring the writ petition within the parameters of the
PIL Rules, 2010, he filed another Misc. Case No.17941 of 2011 in
the Registry, seeking for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty
to file a fresh writ application in the PIL format in accordance with
the PIL Rules, 2010.
11. In the above backdrop, we have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner on the writ petition, further affidavit, pending
Misc. Cases referred to supra, with a view to find out as to whether
the averments made in the writ petition, further affidavit and Misc.
Case are in conformity with the PIL Rules, 2010, and also to prima
facie verify the credential of the petitioner as to whether this PIL
satisfies the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Uttanchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others, AIR
2010 SC 2550 and involves public interest.
12. At this stage, we would like to state the facts in order
to find out as to whether there is genuineness for treating the same
8
as Public Interest Litigation and to answer the issues that are
formulated in this writ petition in paragraph-5 above.
13. The petitioner has stated that in the writ petition that
apart from practicing Law, incidentally, he was visiting the State
Secretariat. He alleged that he got to know that Judges of this
Court have received plots from the CDA from out of the
Discretionary Quota based on extraneous consideration and, this
being the talk in the corridor of the State Secretariat, the petitioner
felt injury to his feelings and enquired into the factual position. He
learnt that on 15.02.2008, the then M.L.A. of Banki Constituency
had raised a question on the floor of the Assembly about the
allotment of plots in favour of IAS/IPS/IFS/Judges/Judges of the
High Court and in answer thereto the factual position for allotment
of the aforesaid plots were tabled before the floor of the Legislative
Assembly of Orissa referring to Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
14. It is further stated that in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner considers it as his right
as well as his duty to see that there must be proper administration
of justice in accordance with law thereby no general public ought
to be discriminated in respect of allotment of plots under the
Discretionary Quota, and thereby the constitutional rights
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India
should remain protected.
9
15. Further, it is alleged that a glance at Annexure-1
would also indicate that the plots allotted were not of any definite
size nor belong to any particular category under the scheme of the
Development Authorities. As could be seen from the allotment of
plots, their sizes vary from allottee to allottee and, more
particularly, it is seen that the plots in question are allotted in the
prime localities of the area concerned. Therefore, it is alleged that
without any scheme being followed, the Discretionary Quota of the
Chairmen of the Development Authorities referred to above, is
alleged to have been exercised indiscriminately.
16. It is further stated that as per the common
understanding of law, that when something is to be done within
the "discretion" of the authorities, the same is required to be done
in accordance with the rules, reason and justice and not according
to private opinion and humour. In support of the said proposition
of law, the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex
Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427.
At paragraph-9 of the said judgment, it is held by the Apex Court
that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens. At
paragraph-14 of the said judgment it is defined that discretion
when conferred upon the executive authorities, it must be confined
within clearly defined limits. It means sound discretion guided by
10
law. It must be governed by rule, not by humor; it must not be
arbitrary, vague and fanciful.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed
strong reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Tarak Sigh
& another v. Jyoti Basu and others, (2005) 1 SCC 201. It is
alleged that having scanned through the allotment of plots by the
Cuttack Development Authority in Bidanasi Project area, it is
noticed that the opp. party-CDA is believed to have made over
crippled information to facilitate the Question And Answer Session
of the Assembly inasmuch as although Hon'ble Judges of this
Hon'ble High Court are the beneficiaries of the alleged allotment
from out of the Discretionary Quota. They were named in ordinary
words without any mention about their designation and even the
residential address was not placed properly. In this view of the
matter, doubts came to the mind of the petitioner as to why the
Development Authorities are not clean in making the correct
statements.
18. It is further stated that during the span stretching
from 2000-2007 as many as 22 numbers of beneficiaries were
allotted with plots in Bidanasi Project area from out of the
Chairman's Discretionary Quota. The said 22 numbers of allottees
are known for their high posts in the State administration and they
have been appeased by the CDA, having not framed any basic
11
principles for such allotment of plots in the prime localities. The
said allotments have been made indiscriminately without any
definite size of the plot, and as and when whatever plots were
found available regardless of the need of the beneficiaries and
public convenience.
19. It is alleged that the sitting Judges, former Judges of
this Court and former Judges of the Supreme Court are the
beneficiaries of the allotment of plots under the Discretionary
Quota apart from the bureaucrats of the State whose list has been
furnished in the writ petition.
20. It is further alleged that the top position bureaucrats
have equally been allotted with plots under the Discretionary
Quota at the prime locations of Bhubaneswar City. The same has
been done taking into consideration the positions of the officers in
the hierarchy of administration of the State, which has become
centre of attraction for the allotment of plots under the
Discretionary Quota of the Chairman. Therefore, it is alleged that
the allotment of plots is vitiated on account of indiscriminate
allotment of plots to the persons holding key positions in the State
Administration without any reasonableness thereby discriminating
the public at large from the possibility of getting such allotment of
plots in the area in question
12
21. In the additional affidavit filed on 31st October, 2011,
the procedure for allotment and percentage of allotment under the
Discretionary Quota as well as the eligibility criteria of the BDA
has been annexed. In Misc. Case No.17846 of 2011 also, some
allegations are made with regard to introduction of statutory rules
by the Government to rationalize public distribution system and to
ensure proper distribution of essential commodities to the common
man and similar persons who are deficient of land in the upcoming
cities. The State Government has introduced the Orissa
Development Authorities Act, 1982. As per the provisions of the
said Act, the Government lands developed for housing plots are
devised to be reasonably and rationally allotted among the
intending persons under the definite plans. Looking at the paucity
of land in the city of Cuttack, the Government has been pleased to
construct a ring road between the river The Kathajodi and The
Mahanadi, and out of the river bed, a vast patch of land was
discovered for establishing township of Abhinaba Bidanasi,
Cuttack. Reference has been made to certain averments in relation
to development of township, which are germane to the purpose of
present adjudication in this petition.
22. It is further alleged that the authorities, namely, BDA
and CDA have indiscriminately distributed plots amongst the rich
and influential persons. The same practice has been adopted since
13
2000 by the then Minister in-charge of the Ministry of Urban Land
Development Department, Orissa in order to legalize his own land
craze, willfully allotted plots to the Judges of the Court,
particularly when an important PIL bearing O.J.C. No.6721 of
1992 was being heard by the Judges of the Court; the Judges of
this Court have been the allotted with plots under the
Discretionary Quota.
23. It is further alleged that no sooner the Judges of the
Court have been benefited with such allotment of plots, the
bureaucrats and high police officials and so also politicians have
indiscriminately hijacked the benefits in the guise of the
Discretionary Quota at the use of their respective powers and
positions and made the Development Authorities thereby deficient
of vacant lands for allotment to the applicants waiting for years
together.
24. In other paragraphs reference is made to the extracts
produced in relation to the Magazines adverted in the earlier
paragraphs of the judgment, which have no relevance for the
purpose of considering the prayers made either in the writ petition
or Further Affidavit or Misc. Case No.17846 of 2011.
25. It is also relevant to verify the correctness of the
statements made in the writ petition, Further Affidavit and affidavit
sworn to in the Misc. Case respectively. To verify the same, the
14
relevant paragraphs of the said affidavits sworn to by the petitioner
are required to be extracted as hereunder:
Affidavit to the writ petition
"Para-3 : That I have collected Annexure-1 from
one of the members of the Hon'ble House and I support
the contents to be true so far as the exact xerox copy of
the document is concerned.
Para-4 : That xerox copy of Annexure-1 is
available with me for verification. I have retyped the
contents for clarity and making the same readable for
the better appreciation by the Hon'ble Court.
Para-5 : That Annexure-2 series are all available
from the net which on being downloaded I filed the
copies and I support the same being true so far as net
news is concerned."
Further Affdavit dated 31st October, 2001
Para-6 : That the annexures filed in the case are
all personally collected by the deponent from different
private sources on the basis of which the above affidavit
is filed; and since the contents for the annexure appears
to be disclosing prima facie facts, the deponent has
brought the same before this Hon'ble Court for further
scrutiny; and in the event records relating to the alleged
allotment of plot is called for, logistic conclusion in the
matter may be arrived at."
15
Affidavit to Misc. Case No.17846 of 2011
"Para-3 : That the annexures filed are mostly
collected from different reliable sources for which the
petitioner stands for the same."
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong
reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tarak
Sigh referred to supra. The relevant paragraph-23 of the said
judgment is extracted as hereunder:
"Para-23 : Since the issue involved in the present
controversy will have far-reaching impact on the
quality of the judiciary, we are tempted to put it on
record which we thought to be a good guidance to
achieve the purity of administration of justice. Even
human being has his own ambition in life. To have an
ambition is virtue. Generally speaking, it is a
cherished desire to achieve something in life. There is
nothing wrong in a judge to have ambition to achieve
something, but if the ambition to achieve is likely to
cause compromise with his divine judicial duty, better
not to pursue it. Because if a judge is too ambitious to
achieve something materially, he becomes timid. When
he becomes timid there will be tendency to
compromise between his divine duty and his personal
interest. There will be conflict in between interest and
duty. This is what exactly has happened in this case.
With due respect to the learned Judge, Justice B.P..
Banerjee, he has misused his divine judicial duty as
16
liveries to accomplish his personal ends. He has
betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people. To
say the least, this is bad. The matter could have been
different if the learned Judges got allotment from the
Chief Minister's quota simplicitor like any other
citizen."
Issue Nos.(i) and (iv)
27. As Issue Nos.(i) and (iv) are interlinked, they are
answered together by assigning the following reasons:
28. It would be worthwhile to extract certain directions
issued by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal & others, AIR 2010 SC 2550, to find out
as to whether this writ petition is a genuine public interest
litigation, which is filed by a practicing lawyer espousing the public
cause, either to prevent public injury or to protect public interest.
The Apex Court in the cited case adverted to the entire case law on
the question of public interest litigation and the nature of cause of
action for PIL and locus standi of a person to espouse public
cause. The Apex Court at paragraph-198 after referring to the
entire case law on the question and the definition of Public Interest
Litigation from United State of America, England, Sout Africa,
Pakistan, Srilanka, Nepal, and the approach of the Courts of the
said countries with reference to their Constitution and extracting
the definition of Public Interest Litigation as defined in the Black's
17
Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at paragraph-29 of the said decision,
has observed that the Council for Public Interest Law, set up by
the Ford Foundation in USA, defined Public Interest Litigation, in
its report of Public Interest Law, USA. The origin of Public Interest
Litigation and evolution of the public interest litigation in India and
the parameters to entertain public interest litigation have been
succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid paragraph,
which is extracted below for the purpose of examining as to
whether the averments, allegations made with reference to the
extract, documents produced and verification made on the
affidavits sworn to by the petitioner fall within the definition of PIL
and as to whether the present PIL is genuine one. The said
paragraph-29 is extracted as hereunder:
"Para-29 : The Council for Public Interest Law set up by
the Ford Foundation in USA defined "public interest
litigation" in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA,
1976 as follows:
Public interest law is the name that has
recently been given to efforts providing legal
representation to previously unrepresented groups and
interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the
recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services
fails to provide such services to significant segments of
the population and to significant interests. Such groups
and interests include the proper environmentalists,
consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others."
(Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra,
SCC p. 288, para 10 : AIR p. 918, para 19.) : (2008 AIR
SCW 343).
18
29. Further, at paragraph-198 of the said judgment
directions were issued to the High Courts to examine as to whether
the Public Interest Litigation petition fulfilled the requirements as
laid down by law. Those directions as at paragraph-198 of the said
judgment read thus :
"Para-198. In order to preserve the purity and
sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to
issue the following directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona
fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the
PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his
own procedure for dealing with the public interest
litigation, it would be appropriate for each High
Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging
the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed
with oblique motives. Consequently, we request
that the High Courts who have not yet framed the
rules, should frame the rules within three
months. The Registrar General of each High Court
is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules
prepared by the High Court is sent to the
Secretary General of this Court immediately
thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the
credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a
PIL.
19
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied
regarding the correctness of the contents of the
petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that
substantial public interest is involved before
entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition
which involves larger public interest, gravity and
urgency must be given priority over other
petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should
ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of
genuine public harm or public injury. The Court
should also ensure that there is no personal gain,
private motive or oblique motive behind filing the
public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the
petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and
ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing
exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel
methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations."
30. The allegations and averments made against the
sitting Judges, former Judges of this Court and former Judges of
the Supreme Court have to be examined in the backdrop of the
definition of PIL as to whether this petition comes within the
parameters of PIL in respect of which category persons, in relation
20
to either on the administrative or executive orders of the State are
required to be examined by this Court as per the legal principles
laid down by the Apex Court in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem
Chandra Mishra, AIR 2008 SC 913. It will be worthwhile to extract
the relevant paragraph-176 of the case of State of Uttaranchal
v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others referred to supra, which
reads as under:
Para-176: "In Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra
Mishra & others AIR 2008 SC 913 : (2008 AIR SCW
343), this Court observed as under:
'It is depressing to note that on account of such
trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts,
innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise
could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the
genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in
fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL
and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor,
the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose
fundamental rights are infringed and violated and
whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and
unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion
that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances
relating to civil matters involving properties worth
hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in
which persons sentenced to death facing gallows
under untold agony and persons sentenced to life
imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years,
21
persons suffering from undue delay in service matters
-- government or private, persons awaiting the
disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public
revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are
locked up, detenu expecting their release from the
detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long
serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of
getting into the courts and having their grievances
redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers,
wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no
public interest except for personal gain or private
profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for
any other extraneous motivation or for glare of
publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by
wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get
into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous
petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time
of the courts and as a result of which the queue
standing outside the doors of the courts never moves,
which piquant situation creates frustration in the
minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they
lose faith in the administration of our judicial system."
The Court cautioned by observing that :
Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be
used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind
the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armoury of law for delivering social justice to the
22
citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest
litigation should not be used for suspicious products
of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine
public wrong or public injury and not publicity
oriented or founded on personal vendetta.
** ** ** ** **
The court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of
the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature
of information given by him; (c) the information being
not vague and indefinite. The information should show
gravity and seriousness involved. The court has to
strike a balance between two conflicting interests; (i)
nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and
reckless allegations besmirching the character of
others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to
avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such
case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It
has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise
of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach
upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the
executive and the legislature. The court has to act
ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and
busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating
as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as
crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name
of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of
the public or even of their own to protect.' "
23
31. At paragraph-177 of the said judgment, the Apex
Court has also observed referring to malice or frivolous or
vexatious petition and imposition of cost in Indian Courts, U.S.
Courts and Canadian Courts, where those courts shall impose
monetary penalties upon the public interest claims regarded as
privileges. Again at paragraph-188 in the said judgment referring
to the case of M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex
Court observed that Judges who exercise the jurisdiction should
be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of PIL, an
ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity - seeking are
not lurking. The court should ensure that there is no abuse of the
process of the court.
32. The said observation is very pertinent to the case at
hand having regard to the undisputed factual position. Vide order
dated 29.09.2011, we had directed the learned counsel for the
petitioner to produce the Discretionary Quota
regulation/guidelines, if any, along with other necessary
documents in support of the petitioner's case and directed the
matter to be listed after the ensuing Puja Holidays, the relevant
portion or the said order reads as hereunder:
Order dated 29.09.2011
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Advocate.
24
Before issuing any notice, we direct the
learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the
discretionary quota regulation/guidelines, if any,
along with other necessary documents in support
of his case.
List this matter after the ensuing Puja
Holidays.
Since we have not issued any notice in
this matter, we direct the parties not to go to the
Press/Electronic Media for publication of any type
of news item with relation to this Case."
(Underlined for emphasis)
33. In spite of the aforesaid observation, as we have
indicated in the narration of the fact portion of the judgment, both
the print media and electronic media had extensively carried
various articles and telecast news items of the subject matter in
this writ petition, even prior to the next of date of hearing, i.e.,
16.11.2011, showing the pictures of the various houses,
photographs of the Judges and other allottees and copies of which
have also been annexed as Annexure-6 series-12 series to Misc.
Case No.17846 of 2011 filed on 16.11.2011. The said documents,
which are produced by the petitioner, would by themselves clearly
establish the fact beyond doubt that, the real object of the
petitioner behind invoking the PIL jurisdiction of this Court by
filing this PIL, which is not in conformity with the Rules, 2010, was
25
to allow to be telecast news items of the subject matter in this writ
petition and published in the electronic media as well as print
media with a designed intention to malign and disrepute the
allottees whose names are referred to in this petition, some of them
who are constitutional functionaries having constitutional
protection in the interest of the institution of Judiciary which is
the third limb of the Constitution and protect the independence of
the Judiciary.
34. It has been time and again reiterated by the
Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court that, the
institution of an independent Judiciary is the bedrock of
democracy and rule of law so as to protect the human rights of the
millions of people, particularly, the masses of the country who
belong to the weaker sections of the society to enable Judges to
discharge their constitutional functions without fear, favour or ill-
will in order to maintain the rule of law.
35. The above conclusion of ours is further established
from the conduct of the petitioner who filed Misc. Case No.17941
of 2011 dated 21st November, 2011 when the case got adjourned
on 16.11.2011 to enable the petitioner to bring the writ petition in
conformity with the PIL Rules, 2010 framed by this Court. Instead
of doing so, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Misc. Case seeking
withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file another writ
26
petition, obviously after having achieved the real purported object
behind filing of this PIL petition i.e. by getting undue publicity in
the print as well as electronic media referred to supra and
maligning various Hon'ble Judges of the High Court.
36. The aforesaid subsequent events and the conduct of
the petitioner in filing the Misc. Cases would clearly go to show
that the PIL is not filed with a bona fide intention to prevent any
public injury or protect public interest. Therefore, the legal
principles laid down by the Apex Court in catena of decisions
referred to in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal referred to supra in all fours are applicable to the fact
situation of the case at hand and compel us to record a finding
that absolutely there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner
to espouse the public cause in this purported PIL as claimed by
the petitioner in this writ petition.
37. In view of the observations made in different cases
decided by the Apex Court with regard to the nature of Public
Interest litigation, it is to be examined by us as to whether this PIL
petition is a genuine one or not. The PIL can be initiated on behalf
of the disadvantaged persons, who are illiterate or economically
disadvantaged belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe categories and persons who have no access to justice to get
their grievances redressed through this Court. In this regard, it
27
may be relevant to extract certain paragraphs from the decision of
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & another,
(2007) 7 SCC 546, wherein a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court after referring to its earlier Constitution Bench and other
large number of decisions held as under:
"50. The principles evolved by this Court in this
behalf may be suitably summarized as under:
(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article
32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
entertain a petition filed by any interested person
in the welfare of the people who is in a
disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position
to knock the doors of the Court.
The Court is constitutionally bound to protect
the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged
people so as to direct the State to fulfil its
constitutional promises. (See S.P. Gupta v. Union
of India, 1981 Supp. SCC 87, People's Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India,(1982) 2 SCC
494; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,
(1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305.)
** ** ** **
(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed
so as to enable the Court to look into the
grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the
depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who
cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury
caused to them for any violation of any
constitutional or legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn.
Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, S.P.
Gupta, People's Union for Democratic Rights, D.C.
Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar and BALCO
Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India.]
(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied
about variation of any constitutional right of a
group of people belonging to the disadvantaged
category, it may not allow the State or the
28
Government from raising the question as to the
maintainability of the petition.
(See: Bandhua Mukti Morcha.)
In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. this
Court held: (SCC pp. 334-35, para 61)
"61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross
violation of fundamental rights by a group or a
class action on when basic human rights are
invaded or when there are complaints of such acts
as shock the judicial conscience that the courts,
especially this Court, should leave aside
procedural shackles and hear such petitions and
extend its jurisdiction under all available
provisions for remedying the hardships and
miseries of the needy, the underdog and the
neglected. I will be second to none in extending
help when such help is required. But this does not
mean that the doors of this Court are always open
for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some
self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants."
38. Apart from the said reasons, it is also necessary for us
to appreciate the constitutional protection given to the Judges of
the Higher Judiciary, i.e., Judges of the High Courts and Supreme
Court. The Apex Court in a Constitution Bench decision in the
case of Sub-Committee of the Judicial Accountability v. Union
of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 320, after referring to Articles
121 and 124 of the Constitution of India, has made certain
observations, which will be very relevant for the purpose of
appreciating the case of the petitioner with a view to arrive at the
29
conclusion whether the PIL is genuine one or not. Observations
made at paragraph-66 the relevant portion is extracted as under :
"We are constrained to say that certain submissions
advanced on the prayer seeking to restrain the
learned Judge from functioning till the proceedings of
the committee were concluded lacked as much in
propriety as in dignity and courtesy with which the
learned judge is entitled. The arguments seemed to
virtually assume that the charges had been
established. Much was sought to be made of the
silence of the Judge and his refusal to be drawn into
a public debate. If we may say so with respect,
learned Judge was entitled to decline the invitation to
offer his explanation to his detractors. No adverse
inference as to substance and validity of the charges
could be drawn from the refusal of the learned judge
to recognize these forums for his vindication. While
the members of the bar may claim to act in public
interest they have, at the same time, a duty of
courtesy and particular care that in the vent of the
charges being found baseless or insufficient to
establish any moral turpitude, the judge does not
suffer irreparably in the very process. The approach
should not incur the criticism that it was calculated
to expose an able and courteous judge to public
indignity even before the allegations were examined
by the forum constitutionally competent to do so.
Propriety required that even before the charges are
proved in the only way in which it is permitted to be
30
proved, the Judge should not be embarrassed. The
constitutional protection to Judges is not for their
personal benefit; but is one of the means of
protecting the judiciary and its independence and is,
therefore, in the larger public interest. Recourse to
constitutional methods must be adhered to, if the
system were to survive. Learned Judge in his letter to
the Registrar-General which he desired to be placed
before the Court had, indeed, expressed deep
anguish at the way the petitioners had been
permitted themselves to sit in judgment over him and
deal with him the way they did."
(Emphasis made by this Court)
39. The aforesaid principle has been referred by a Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Subhramani v.
Union of India, and S. Vasudeva and B.V. Reddy v. State of
Karnataka, reported in 1995 (6) Kar LJ 476. In the said judgment
reliance was placed upon the case of Rondel v. W.Low, Denning
M.R., 1966 All ER 657, it will be very necessary to extract the said
portion, which reads as under:
".......Every counsel has a duty to his client
fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every
argument and ask every question, however
distasteful, which he thinks will help his client's
case. As an officer of the Court concerned in the
administration of Justice, he has an overriding
duty to the Court, to the standards of his
31
profession and to the public, which may and
often does lead to conflict with his client's
wishes or with what the client thinks are his
personal interests. Counsel must not mislead
the Court, he must not land himself to casting
aspersions on the other party or witnesses for
which there is no sufficient basis in the
information in his possession, he must not
withhold authorities or documents which may
tell against his clients but which the law or the
standards of his profession require him to
produce. By so acting he may well incur the
displeasure or worry of his client so that if the
case is lost, his client would or might seek legal
redress if that were open to him"
** ** ** ** **
"...........It is a mistake to suppose that he is the
mouthpiece of his client to say what he
wants.....He must disregard the most specific
instructions of his client, if they conflict with his
duty to the Court. The Code which requires a
Barrister to do all this is not a code of law. It is a
code of honor. If he breaks it, he is offending
against the rules of the profession and is subject
to its discipline."
40. A careful reading of Articles 121 and 124 of the
Constitution and the law enacted by the Parliament with regard to
the Judges Enquiry Act, 1968 give a clear indication that the
32
conduct and alleged misdemeanor of a Judge are not open for
public criticism, except in the manner prescribed under the
provisions of Article 124 read with the Judges Enquiry Act.
41. For the reasons stated supra issue no.(iv) seeking
permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file the
same again in conformity with the PIL Rules, 2010 cannot be
granted as it would amount to an abuse of process of the Court
having regard to the factual position that the petitioner is a
practicing lawyer and he has been advised by a senior lawyer who
has filed this writ petition, who is expected to know the PIL Rules
framed by this Court pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court
in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal
referred to supra. The allegations made by the petitioner in this
petition, additional affidavit and the miscellaneous petition are
not supported by any authenticated documents, and when this
was pointed out by this Court to the learned counsel for the
petitioner at the time of hearing on admission that the writ
petition is not in conformity with the PIL Rules, 2010, the learned
counsel came up with the Misc. Case seeking withdrawal of the
writ petition, which is a clear case of abuse of the process of this
court by the petitioner who lacks bona fides to espouse the public
cause.
33
For the aforesaid reasons, issue no.(i) is required to
be answered against the petitioner.
42. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied
upon the decision in Tarak Singh's case referred to supra. After
referring to paragraphs-20 and 23 of the said judgment learned
counsel submitted that the observations made in the said case
are aptly applicable to the fact situation of the present case as the
Apex Court in the said case dealt with a situation of Discretionary
powers of the Chief Minister of West Bengal who exercised his
power for allotment of the plots in favour of various persons
including the then sitting Judge Mr B.P. Banerjee of the Calcutta
High Court whose allotment has been quashed in the said case.
Therefore, he contended that the said observations must be
applied to the fact situation of this case and relief as prayed for in
this petition be granted. The said submission of the learned
counsel is wholly untenable for the following reasons.
43. No doubt, in the said case, the allotment in favour of
Justice B.P. Banarjee along with others was the subject matter of
challenge in the above referred case. The Apex Court while
examining the nature and function of the said Judge had held
that he had compromised his judicial duty in getting the
allotment made in his favour. Therefore, the Supreme Court had
34
quashed the allotment of plot made in favour of Justice B.P.
Banerjee.
In respect of others, the Supreme Court after
referring to the submissions made by learned counsel on behalf of
number of other Judges of the High Court and other personalities
who were allotted with plots under the Discretionary Quota, did
not interfere with, which is very clear from reading of the
observation made at paragraphs-20 and 23. Emphasis is laid
down in a portion of the said judgment at paragraph-23 in
support of the case of the petitioner, which has no application to
the case in hand, particularly, having regard to the fact that
allotment of plots made in favour of the other Judges was not
interfered with by the Apex Court. While saying so, at the last
sentence of paragraph-23, it is stated that, "the matter could have
been different, if the learned Judge would have got allotment from
the Chief Minister's quota simplicitor like any other citizens". At
paragrapgh-20 of the said case, the Apex Court has also observed
as hereunder:
"Para-20 : It is also contended by Mr Ganguli that a
large number of Judges of the High Court and the
Supreme Court have also been allotted plots in Salt
Lake City under the discretionary quota of the Chief
Minister and it will be unfair to single out
Respondent 24 for meeting out a different
35
treatment. At the time of hearing of this writ
petition, we requested the learned Senior Counsel
to inform us whether any other Judge or Judges
obtained the allotment order from the discretionary
quota of the Chief Minister by compromising his
judicial duties, we would also proceed against such
allottee. He, however, was unable to receive any
instruction in this behalf. It is trite, unequals
cannot be treated equally.
(Underlined for emphasis)
44. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the
Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment while dealing with
PIL petition relating to allotment of Government land in the case
of Joydeep Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal and others,
(2011) 2 SCC 706. In the said judgment at paragraph-11 and
Paragraph-20 Tarak Singh's case is extracted. Having regard to
the observations made in Tarak Singh's case, which is reiterated
in Joydeep Mukherjee's case referred to supra, the Supreme
Court has made it very clear that the allotment made under the
Discretionary Quota per se cannot be termed as illegal unless it is
associated with compromising of the position of a Judge while
discharging judicial function and getting undue benefit of
allotment of the sites from the Development Authorities in the
prime localities of the development authorities' area. (Underlined
for emphasis)
36
45. As could be seen from the averments and allegations
made in this petition, the relevant portions of which are extracted
above, no such allegation has been made by the petitioner against
the Judges who are allotted with the plots, except stray
allegations made against two Judges in relation to the writ
petition in OJC No.6721 of 1999, which has nothing to do with
allotment of plots from the Discretionary Quota by the
Development Authorities. The said writ petition is in relation to
demolition of unauthorized construction in the Cuttack City area
and that has nothing do with allotment of plots under the
Discretionary Quota. The aforesaid writ petition is a continuing
writ petition to ensure that the unauthorized encroachers and
public land grabbers shall not put up unauthorized construction
on the public property. This has nothing to do with allotment of
plots from the Discretionary Quota.
46. Therefore, we have to hold that the observations
made in the cases of Tarak Singh and Joydeep Mukherjee do not
support the case of the petitioner for our interference in this PIL,
since we have already answered that it is not a PIL by recording
our reasons in support of the aforesaid conclusion.
47. Accordingly, both the issue nos.(i) and (iv) are
answered against the petitioner.
37
Issue No.(ii)
48. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed as it is
undisputedly not in conformity with the PIL Rules, 2010. The said
Rules have been framed on the direction of the Supreme Court
having regard to the fact that for over a period of 3 and half
decades, there has been abuse of the constitutional courts, i.e.,
Supreme Court and High Courts by filing PILs, without there
being genuineness in protecting the public injury or interest. The
Apex Court after extracting the evolution of PIL and abuse of the
process of the court at paragraph-198(1) in the case of State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., directed all the High
Courts in the country to frame rules to curtail filing of PIL only to
see that genuine public interest litigation petition is filed to
protect the persons socially and educationally backward and the
persons who have no access to Justice to secure them justice and
to protect their constitutional and human rights. Accordingly,
vide notification date 28th April, 2010 the PIL Rules, 2010 have
been framed by this Court, procedure is laid down, the definition
of public interest litigation and rules are prescribed, particularly
Rule 3 with regard to the genuineness and bona fide and Rule 5
is regarding the credentials of the petitioner and to satisfy the
correctness. The forms appended to the Rule 6 including the
verifying affidavit and also the requirements of Rules 6, 7, 8 and 9
of the PIL Rules, 2010 have not been complied with in the present
38
PIL. Rules 6 and 7 of the PIL Rules, 2010 of the Orissa High
Court read as under:
"Rule-6: Every petition filed in Court in the form
of Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India shall be in the form
appended hereto and shall be heard and
disposed of by a Division Bench presided over by
the Chief Justice or any other Bench assigned
by the Chief Justice.
Rule-7: The petition shall contain the facts of the
case in chronological order. If the petition is
based on news report, it must be stated as to
whether the petitioner has verified the truth of
the facts by personally visiting the place or by
talking to the people concerned or has verified
from the reporter or editor of the news paper
concerned."
49. The same principle has been reiterated by the Apex
Court in the case of Rohit Pandey v. Union of India and
others, (2005) 13 SCC 702. Therefore, the documents produced
in the writ petition as well as the Misc. Case are neither
authenticated documents nor certified copies and there is no
reference in the verifying affidavits with regard to which
document is a certified copy and/or authenticated copy and the
averments made are within petitioner's knowledge, belief and
information, which are mandatory under the provisions of Order
39
19 Rule 3, CPC. Therefore, the documents produced in this
proceeding cannot be placed reliance in support of the averments
and allegations made by the petitioner against the allottees. Even
assuming for the sake of arguments, on the basis of Tarak
Singh's case at paragraph-23 that the allotment of plots under
the Discretionary Quota by the Chairmen of the Development
Authorities in favour of the persons who are referred in this writ
petition, there is no further allegation insofar as the Judges are
concerned that they have compromised in discharging their
judicial function to secure allotment under the Discretionary
Quota from the Chairman of the CDA. The same reason holds
good for other allottees also.
50. Apart from the said reason, the allegations and
averments made against the allottees are not properly verified as
required under law. We have extracted the relevant paragraphs
from the verifying affidavits of the writ petition as well as the
Misc. Case referred in paragraph-25 supra. These verifications of
facts pleaded in the writ petition and Misc. Case are mandatory
as required under Order 6 Rule 15 read with Order 19 Rules 1
and 3, CPC. Rules 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the PIL Rules, 2010 deal with
aspect to satisfy the correctness of the contents of the petition,
which has not been done in the present case by the petitioner. If
the petition is based on media reports, it must be stated in the
40
petition as to whether the petitioner has verified the truth of the
fact personally by visiting the place or by taking consent of the
people or has verified from the Reporter or Editor of the
newspaper concerned. The Apex Court in the case of State of
Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, AIR 1952 SC 317, has laid
down the principle, which is as follows:
"We wish, however, to observe that the verification
of the affidavits produced here is defective. The
body of the affidavit discloses that certain matters
were known to the Secretary who made the
affidavit personally. The notification however
states that everything was true to the best of his
information and belief. We issue this out as
slipshod verifications of this type might well in a
given case lead to a rejection of the affidavit.
Verification should invariably be modeled on the
lines of Order 19, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure
Code, whether the Code applies in terms or not.
And when the matter deposed to is not based on
personal knowledge the sources of information
should be clearly disclosed. We draw attention to
the remarks of Jenkins C.J. and Woodroffe J. in
'PADMABATI DASI' v. RASIK LAL DHAR', 37 Cal
259 and endorse the learned Judges'
observations."
41
51. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of Dr. B.
Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 2004 SC 1923 at
paragraph-4 has specifically observed as follows :
".............It is too much to attribute authenticity or
credibility to any information or fact merely because, it
found publication in a newspaper or journal or
Magazine or any other form of communication, as
though it is gospel truth. It needs no reiteration that
newspaper reports per se do not constitute legally
acceptable evidence......"
52. It is necessary for us to examine Rules 8 and 9 of the
PIL Rules, 2010 of the Orissa High Court, which read as
hereunder:
Rule-8: Before filing a PIL, the petitioner must
send a representation to the authorities
concerned for taking remedial action, akin to
what is postulated in Section 80, CPC. Details of
such representation and reply, if any, from the
authority concerned along with copies thereof
must be filed with the petition. However, in
urgent cases where making of representation
and waiting for response would cause
irreparable injury or damage, petition can be
filed straightway by giving prior notice of filing to
the authorities concerned and/or their counsel,
if any.
Rue-9: Frivolous and vexatious PIL - where the
Court is of the opinion that the Public Interest
42
Litigation petition filed by the petitioner is
frivolous or vexatious or is devoid of
public interest or is filed as camouflage to foster
personal gain or is filed for extraneous and
ulterior motives, it shall dismiss the same with
exemplary cost."
53. Therefore, the rules are prescribed to do a particular
thing in a particular manner is the well known legal principle laid
down right from Privy Council. The said legal principle is also
reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Berghese
and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC
1281, wherein the Apex Court at pagragraphs-31 and 32 has held
has under"
Paragraph-31: "It is the basic principle of law
long settled that if the manner of doing a
particular act is prescribed under any Statute,
the act must be done in that manner or not at
all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the
decision in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1Ch D 426
which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir
Ahmad v. Kind Emperor, 63 Ind App 372 : AIR
1936 PC 253 who stated as under:
'Where a power is given to do a certain
thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all.'
43
For the reasons stated supra, we answer the said
issue No.(ii) against the petitioner.
54. In the case on hand, from the averments made, it
appears that some allotments were made during the years 2000
to 2007 which have by now become four to eleven years old.
Therefore, by this time the rights of the allottees have been
settled, which is one more strong reason on merit also. The
principle of delay defeats equity will come on the way in
exercising our equitable and discretionary relief in this particular
litigation.
Issue No.(iii)
55. We have already answered issue nos. (i) and (iv)
together and issue no.(ii) separately, against the petitioner after
adverting to the relevant facts and legal contentions urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner by recording our reasons. Since
we have answered the aforesaid issues against the petitioner, the
further prayer made by the petitioner to entrust the matter to the
CBI for inquiry is totally unnecessary as the petitioner has not
made out a case for entrusting the matter to the CBI in exercise
of our discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, issue no.(iii) is also answered in negative against the
44
petitioner holding that it is not at all a case for referring the
matter to the CBI for inquiry.
56. In view of the above statement of law laid down by
the Supreme Court, non-compliance of the mandatory rules
prescribed by this Court for filing PIL, the petition is not
maintainable. On this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed. Since we have answered all the issues against the
petitioner by recording reasons, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
57. In view of our finding that this is not a genuine Public
Interest Litigation petition, this necessarily warrants imposition of
exemplary cost, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner is
a young practicing Advocate, we desist from so doing with the
hope and conviction that in the future the learned Members of the
Bar would always keep in mind and abide by the dicta of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sub-
Committee of the Judicial Accountability v. Union of India
and others referred to supra, relevant portion of which is
reiterated as hereunder:
"............While the members of the bar may claim
to act in public interest they have, at the same
time, a duty of courtesy and particular care that
in the event of the charges being found baseless
or insufficient to establish any moral turpitude,
45
the judge does not suffer irreparably in the very
process. The approach should not incur the
criticism that it was calculated to expose an able
and courteous judge to public indignity even
before the allegations were examined by the forum
constitutionally competent to do so. Propriety
required that even before the charges are proved
in the only way in which it is permitted to be
proved, the Judge should not be embarrassed.
The constitutional protection to Judges is not for
their personal benefit; but is one of the means of
protecting the judiciary and its independence and
is, therefore, in the larger public interest........."
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
............................
Chief Justice
I. Mahanty, J.I agree.
............................ I.Mahanty, J.
I Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 8the December,2011/pc pradhan