Gujarat High Court
Chandravadan Rangildas Dhru vs State Of Gujarat & 1....Opponent(S) on 22 February, 2017
Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 247 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1505 of 2017
In
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 247 of 2016
==========================================================
CHANDRAVADAN RANGILDAS DHRU....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Opponent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
PARTY-IN-PERSON, ADVOCATE for the Applicant MR KAMAL B TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SANGEETA K VISHEN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 22/02/2017 CAV ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)
1. This Writ-petition, by way of Public Interest Litigation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, who appeared as party in person, seeking the reliefs which read as under:
"(A) Your honour may kindly accept this appeal (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to consider the Page 1 of 16 HC-NIC Page 1 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER facts and contents of this application and will issue notice to the opponents for noncompliance of applicant request for cancellation of Amendment made in Resolution and new Resolution may be published.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue necessary direction may please be given to the respondent to take appropriate action in the metter (sic) as per law prevails.
(D) The Legislative & Parliamentary Affairs Department of the Government of Gujarat has published resolution dated 2.11.2004 is not just & proper. It is against the interest of public. It may please be cancelled with immediate effect and new resolution may please be published in which 2 (two) non-official members be included by replacing above referred resolution dated 2.11.2004. (E)The concerned officials of The Legislative & Parliamentary Affairs Department of the Government of Gujarat and Chairman of the Law Commission of Gujarat by misusing the power conferred to them has published resolution dated
2.11.2004 has created loss to the public interest required to be initiated disciplinary as well as punishable proceedings according to post hold by them.
(F)Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further orders as deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The petitioner, party in person, claims to be a journalist Page 2 of 16 HC-NIC Page 2 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER of a Gujarati newspaper, a social worker and also promoter of information rights of the public at large. In this writ-petition, the petitioner has questioned the Resolution dated 2nd November 2004 issued by the Government of Gujarat, by which the earlier Government Resolution dated 22nd June 1998, is amended, by which the composition of the Gujarat State Law Commission is changed. As per the said Resolution dated 22nd June 1998, composition of the Law Commission should consist a Chairman, who is acting or retired Justice of the Gujarat High Court and two members from Non-Governmental Organisation. From reading of the aforesaid Government Resolutions and the other material placed on record, it appears that the said Law Commission is constituted with avowed object to study and consolidate the laws and bring them in conformity with the changed socio- economic condition; to recommend and suggest necessary amendments in existing laws; to review the procedural laws and to determine the inconsistency therein and; to recommend and suggest amendment in the existing laws which are rendered inconsistent and incongruous owing to the judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court etc. Subsequently, Page 3 of 16 HC-NIC Page 3 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER composition of the Law Commission is changed by the Government of Gujarat by Government Resolution dated 2nd November 2004. As per the said Resolution, the composition of the Law Commission consists of a Chairman (acting or retired Justice of the Gujarat High Court), one non-official member and one official member.
3. In this writ-petition, which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, it is alleged that there is no reason for changing the composition of the Law Commission with regard to members by way of amendment. The petitioner has made reference to the representations made by him to the various authorities, including the Hon'ble Governor of State of Gujarat, and further pleading that, no action is taken on such representations to restore the earlier composition with two members of Non-Governmental Organizations, the petitioner has approached this Court with the reliefs as quoted above.
4. From the perusal of the averments and the allegations made in the petition, it appears that the petitioner has expressed the apprehension that if a member from administrative side of the government is appointed, he will be working under pressure of the government, and has therefore pleaded that such amendment is not in the Page 4 of 16 HC-NIC Page 4 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER interest of public. It is pleaded that due to unknown reasons, amendment is made by Government Resolution dated 2nd November, 2004, amending the composition of the Law Commission. It is alleged that there is no requirement of amendment, but with mala fide intention, the Government of Gujarat has passed new Government Resolution, which is not in the interest of public at large. In paragraph-12(E) of the petition, the petitioner has also alleged that the concerned officials of the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Department of the Government of Gujarat and the Chairman of the Law Commission of Gujarat, by misusing the power conferred on them have published the Resolution dated 2nd November, 2004, which has caused loss to the public interest.
5. When the matter was listed for admission on 5th December 2016, the learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions on the allegations made by the petitioner for change in the composition of the Commission Law by issuing Resolution dated 2nd November 2004.
6. At the stage of admission, affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent no.1-State of Gujarat. In the affidavit in reply, while denying the various allegations Page 5 of 16 HC-NIC Page 5 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER made in the petition, it is stated that the Gujarat State Law Commission is not a statutory body, but is an executive body, which is constituted under the executive power, and its major function is to work for legal reforms. It is stated that if laws are found deficient or defunct, to meet with the requirements of the society, the same need a change and with this objective in mind, the Legal Department, in the year 1998, suggested for appointing a Law Commission, and the idea behind the appointment of Law Commission was to see that it studies the existing laws in light of changed scenario which has taken place after the enactment of the various laws and if necessary, suggest required changes. It is pleaded in the affidavit in reply that function of the Gujarat State Law Commission is neither adjudicatory nor supervisory, but is recommendatory in nature. As stated in the affidavit, the Gujarat State Law Commission is assigned the following functions:
(i) To study and consolidate the laws and bring them in conformity with the changed socio-economic condition and make them as per the expectation of the public at large;
(ii) To recommend and suggest necessary amendments
Page 6 of 16
HC-NIC Page 6 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017
C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER
in law so as to bring it in tune with guiding principles contained in the Constitution (Directive Principles of the State Policy) and to recommend framing of new laws.
(iii) If the Officer and/or any person who is responsible to implement the laws and fails in performing his responsibility, in such cases, to fix the accountability of such person and/or Officer and to recommend framing of laws in this behalf.
(iv) To review the procedural laws, to determine the inconsistency therein and to recommend for removal of the inconsistency and suggest solutions for making the procedure expeditious.
(v) To recommend and suggest amendment in the existing laws which are rendered inconsistent and incongruous owing to the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court, and to bring them in consonance with the existing principle.
7. With reference to the main allegation made by the petitioner for changing the composition of the Law Commission, it is stated in the affidavit in reply that, as per the provisions contained in the Government Resolution dated 22nd June, 1998, the Commission was to Page 7 of 16 HC-NIC Page 7 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER consist one Chairman who should be a Judge or has been a Judge of the High Court of Gujarat along with two Non- Government Officials. It appears that thereafter, the whole file was transferred from Legal Department to the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Department, where the State Government was of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of all the concerned that a person having experience on the administrative as well as executive side should also be inducted in the constitution of the Law Commission, which would help in getting the recommendations and/or suggestions from the administrative view point. Accordingly, the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Department mooted a proposal for restructuring the Gujarat State Law Commission and thereafter for making provisions for inducting one government member by reducing one member from two members from Non-Governmental Organizations. Consequently, the State Government issued Government Resolution dated 2nd November 2004. While referring to a series of petitions filed by the petitioner and the orders passed by this Court in those petitions, which are disposed of, it is pleaded that the petitioner appears to be in the habit of making applications lacking in merit Page 8 of 16 HC-NIC Page 8 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER and substance, and the conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be bona fide and is capable of terming the petitioner as a busy body. It is also pleaded that the conduct of the petitioner also exhibits casual and callous approach in making allegations. It is pleaded that the complaints which are made by the petitioner to various authorities and high dignitaries without any basis should be depricated with censure. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has made complaint to the Hon'ble Governor of Gujarat and other dignitaries for removal of Hon'ble Chairman of the Law Commission and the contents of such complaints are not in right spirit, and such conduct of the petitioner deserves to be condemned. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has developed tendency of raising unnecessary and baseless grievances against each and every act of the State Government, as such, there does not appear to be any genuine public interest involved in the petition filed by the petitioner.
8. Heard Shri Chandravadan R. Dhruv, appearing as party in person and Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondent no.1- State.
Page 9 of 16
HC-NIC Page 9 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017
C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER
9. The petitioner - party in person submits that initially, the government issued Government Resolution dated 22nd June 1998, constituting the Gujarat State Law Commission consisting of Hon'ble Chairman (acting or retired Justice of the Gujarat High Court) along with two other members from Non-Governmental Organizations. But without any justification or reason, the said composition is amended by subsequent Government Resolution dated 2nd November 2004. It is submitted that there is no valid reason for changing the earlier composition and if a member from administrative side of the government is included in the Law Commission, there is likelihood of pressure from the government on such member and as such, he cannot act independently. It is contended that in spite of several representations made by the petitioner, no steps are taken against the Government Resolution dated 2nd November 2004, as such, the petitioner has approached this Court.
10. Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent no.1- State submits that the petitioner is in the habit of filing petitions complaining over the actions taken by the Page 10 of 16 HC-NIC Page 10 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER government and this is not a bona fide Public Interest Litigation. It is submitted that the composition is changed for better functioning of the Commission and merely because it is not to the taste of the understanding of the petitioner, it cannot be termed as mala fide or illegal so as to entertain this petition. It is submitted that the Law Commission is not a statutory body of the government,but it is constituted in exercise of executive power in the year 1998 with the avowed object of studying and consolidating the laws, seeking recommendations for updating various laws and for better administration of justice, and when it was felt necessary, Government Resolution dated 2nd November 2004 is issued by inclusion of one administrative member by reducing one member from two members from Non- Governmental Organizations, and such amendment is made to serve its purpose better. The petitioner has made reckless and false allegations and such practice of the petitioner in approaching this Court and making allegations against high dignitaries should be depricated.
11. Having heard the party in person as well as the learned Advocate General for respondent no.1 State, we have perused the other material placed on record. It is Page 11 of 16 HC-NIC Page 11 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER true that Law Commission is constituted by the government in exercise of its executive powers conferred under the constitutional scheme. Initially, when the Commission was constituted, its composition consisted of Hon'ble Chairman (acting or former Justice of the Gujarat High Court) with two other members from Non- Governmental Organizations. It appears that when the government felt that there is need to induct one member from administrative side, earlier composition is changed with the Chairman (acting or retired Justice of Gujarat High Court), one member from Non-Governmental Organization and another member from the administrative side of the government. Having regard to the purpose and object for which such Law Commission is constituted, it appears that the government thought it fit to change the composition. Except the bare allegation made by the petitioner that such composition is changed without any good reason and is mala fide action, there is no basis for such allegation made by the petitioner. Merely because the amended composition does not suit the thinking of the petitioner or to his mind as not required, it cannot be faulted in the absence of any other ground to invalidate such amendment. It is always open Page 12 of 16 HC-NIC Page 12 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER to the State to amend its earlier executive order or resolution which is passed in exercise of its executive power, by subsequent resolution for better functioning of the institution. That by itself is no ground to accept the plea of the petitioner that such amendment is illegal and arbitrary. Except the bare statement made in the petition that there is no valid reason for amending the composition of the Law Commission, there is no other material worth accepting the plea of the petitioner. It is also clear from the record that highly respected and former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is appointed as Chairman of the Law Commission. In view of such allegations, we are convinced that the petition is filed by making baseless and reckless allegations against the officials of the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Department of the State of Gujarat and the Hon'ble Chairman of the Law Commission of Gujarat. When the government has issued orders for amendment of the composition of the Commission, there is no basis for allegation of the petitioner that such Resolution is at the instance of the Chairman of the Law Commission and he has misused the powers as pleaded in para 12(E) of the petition. In the absence of any substantiation on such Page 13 of 16 HC-NIC Page 13 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER allegations by placing material on record, we express our displeasure that such allegations are made by the petitioner against the Hon'ble Chairman of the Law Commission. Further, we are also of the view that writ- petition by way of Public Interest Litigation ought to be encouraged where genuine public interest is involved. But it is high time for the Courts to discourage the petitions which are being filed in this Court wasting the precious time of the courts at the cost of other bona fide litigants, who are waiting for years for disposal of their cases in the courts. It is worthwhile to notice the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590. Paras 12 and 15 of the above judgment read as under:-
12. 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 armory of law for delivering social justice to the 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. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or Page 14 of 16 HC-NIC Page 14 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
xxx xxx xxx
15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC
481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., (AIR 1994 SC 2151). No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996 (7) JT 265). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public."
12. In view of the observations made in the above paras 12 and 15, we are of the view that such observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will apply to the facts of the present case, as we have noticed that the petition is filed by making reckless allegations against the amendment made by way of Government Resolution dated 2nd November 2004, where public interest is not involved. On the other hand, public interest is better Page 15 of 16 HC-NIC Page 15 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/247/2016 CAV ORDER served in view of the changed composition of the Gujarat State Law Commission. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ-petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. Since the main petition is dismissed, the Civil Application does not survive and the same stands disposed of.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) pirzada Page 16 of 16 HC-NIC Page 16 of 16 Created On Sun Aug 13 06:52:03 IST 2017