Gujarat High Court
Pravinsinh P Kher vs State Of Gujarat & 7....Opponent(S) on 4 September, 2015
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/WPPIL/184/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 184 of 2015
==========================================================
PRAVINSINH P KHER....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 7....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PJ MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NIRAVKUMAR P MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 04/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL)
1. The petitioner claiming to be a public-spirited person has approached to this Court for seeking appropriate writ to direct the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to take appropriate actions against the respondent nos. 5 to 8 of Kim Gram Panchayat for alleged abuse of power and misuse of public funds and mal- administration and mismanagement in performing their statutory duties. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent no.3-District Development Officer to pass appropriate orders under Section 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Page 1 of 7 HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Wed Sep 09 01:06:47 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/184/2015 ORDER Act against the respondent nos. 5 to 7. Further prayer is made by the petitioner to direct the respondent no.3-District Development Officer to take appropriate steps for recovery of public funds misused by the respondent nos. 5 to 8. It is also prayed by the petitioner to direct the District Development Officer to pass appropriate order against the respondent no. 8- Talati-cum-Mantri and to impose major punishment of dismissal upon him. The petitioner has also prayed for a relief, inter alia, to direct the District Development Officer to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent nos. 5 to 8. The last prayer made by the petitioner is to direct the respondent no.1- Secretary of Panchayat Department of the State Government to initiate departmental actions against the respondent no.3- District Development Officer as well as respondent no.4-Taluka Development Officer.
2. We have heard Mr. P.J. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. At the outset, we may record that as per the documents produced by the petitioner himself, the District Collector, Surat has already initiated action of holding an inquiry in respect of development of the pond in question without the permission of the competent authority. The said aspect is reflected from the letter dated 9.3.2015, copy whereof is produced at Annexure:M. It further appears that the Taluka Development Officer has reported after holding an inquiry that there were certain Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Wed Sep 09 01:06:47 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/184/2015 ORDER irregularities in the procedure to be followed by the Gram Panchayat and also in making of the payment. The District Development Officer, thereafter, upon receipt of the report has taken action against the Talati-cum-Mantri, respondent no.8 for the major punishment and charge-sheet is also issued to him, copy whereof is produced at Annexure:S at page 94 of the petition. It also appears that the District Development Officer has issued show cause notice to the respondent no.5-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat for alleged misconduct and for removal from the post in question and other consequential action for fastening of the liability. It is at this stage, the petitioner, claiming to be a public-spirited person has approached to this Court.
4. It is hardly required to be stated that PIL jurisdiction of this Court is not to surpass or bypass the regular procedure of law. Whatever may be the anxiety on the part of the petitioner, even if to be considered, the authority cannot be directed to bypass the procedure as prescribed by law. Further, if there is absolute inaction in spite of the old facts placed before the authority or there is any mala fide intention to side with the wrong-doers, this Court may intervene in a given case or appropriate case. But when the authority has already activated itself after taking notice of the fact that certain irregularities and illegalities had taken place in the administration of the Gram Panchayat, we do not find that the petitioner will have Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Wed Sep 09 01:06:47 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/184/2015 ORDER any justifiable cause at this stage to invoke the PIL jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Mr. Mehta further contended that the pond in question has been developed in contravention of the decision of this Court in the case of Shailesh R. Shah vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2002 (3) GLR 2295 and submitted that action may be taken not only against the Sarpanch, but also against Up-Sarpanch and the other members of the Gram Panchayat. He submitted that there was a Civil Court order passed with consent of the Gram Panchayat as back as in the year 2004, but in spite of the same, the Gram Panchayat has not implemented such order. According to him, the aforesaid would be a valid ground to invoke PIL jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. We are afraid, such contention can be entertained at this stage nor such contention can be said as valid at this stage to invoke the PIL jurisdiction of this Court, more particularly when the authorities themselves have considered all the aspects and the law is put into motion and actions are being taken on the aspect of development of the pond and the District Collector has already initiated the inquiry on the aspect of so-called illegalities or irregularities in the administration of the Panchayat and subsequently has already initiated the action. Out of the inquiry which is conducted by the District Development Officer against the Talati-cum-Mantri as well as Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Wed Sep 09 01:06:47 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/184/2015 ORDER Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, if it is found that the other members of the Gram Panchayat had also played any role, action may be taken against such members, but thereby it cannot be said that the authorities have not initiated any action in accordance with law. The anxiety on the part of the petitioner to ensure the punishment cannot be entertained at this stage when the authority has initiated action in accordance with law and it is only at the conclusion of or such proceedings, appropriate decision may be taken.
7. It appears that though the petitioner is projected as an activist, he has been espousing the cause of minority members of the Gram Panchayat who are unable to prevail over the majority members of the Gram Panchayat. We do not find the present litigation being initiated with any bona fide purpose.
8. Mr. Mehta contended that case of similar mismanagement had taken place in th case of Suvali Gram Panchayat in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 147 of 2014 which has been filed by one Devsingbhai Narsingbhai Chaudhary and this Court has entertained the matter and the notices are issued. However, when the Court put further question to the learned counsel as to whether any action was taken in the said case at the relevant point of time by the District Development Officer and the Collector, in response thereof, he stated that in the said petition no action was taken at the relevant point of time, but after the notice was issued by this Court in the said petition, the action has been Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Wed Sep 09 01:06:47 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/184/2015 ORDER taken.
9. In view of the aforesaid distinguishing circumstances, when the action is already taken in the present matter and the inquiry is on, we do not find that the present case can be equated with WP(PIL) No. 147 of 2014 as sought to be canvassed.
10. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balvant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 and more particularly the discussion by the Apex Court under the head of abuse of Public Litigation. The Apex Court, by referring to its earlier decision in the case of Neetu vs. Sate of Punjab and others, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614 observed that when a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the Court has to be careful to see whether the attack under the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object. Considering the facts and circumstances and more particularly, the communication produced in the petition addressed to the Chief Minister of the State by the minority group of the elected persons, we find that there is no bona fide purpose on the part of the petitioner and the minority group has projected the petitioner to come forward by the present litigation. As observed by the Apex Court in the above-referred decision in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra) and more particularly the concluding observations made at paragraph-
Page 6 of 7
HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Wed Sep 09 01:06:47 IST 2015
C/WPPIL/184/2015 ORDER
181, if the Court finds that there is no bona fide purpose on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner is espousing the cause with extraneous consideration and ulterior motives, the Court should award exemplary costs upon such petitioner so that the litigants may learn a lesson and they may not get encouragement to bring frivolous litigations before the Court.
11. However, before we concluded on the aspect of the costs, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request on behalf of the petitioner as well as on his behalf that such frivolous litigation shall not be brought before this Court in future and Mr. Mehta undertook before this Court that such shall not be repeated in future.
12. In view of the above, by taking gracious view, we leave at that and dismiss the petition without imposing costs. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) pirzada Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Wed Sep 09 01:06:47 IST 2015