Madhya Pradesh High Court
K P Singh Advocate vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya, Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 11164 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. K.P. SINGH ADVOCATE S/O SHRI D.P.
SINGH, AGED : 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION :
MEESA-BANDI PENSIONER, R/O C-63,
GOVINDPURI, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ANOOP AGARWAL S/O LATE SHRI K.L.
AGARWAL, AGED : 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : BUSINESS, R/O 105,
AMALTAS BUILDING, GREEN GARDEN,
CITY CENTER, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY, CITY CENTER,
GWALIOR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. S.H.O. POLICE STATION,
VISHVAVIDHYALAY, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI M.P.S. RAGHGUVANSHI - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
WITH SHRI A.K. NIRANKARI - ADVOCATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice ROHIT ARYA passed the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner No.1 Shri K.P.Singh, S/o Shri D.P.Singh aged about 72 years styles himself as an Advocate along with one Anoop Agrawal a businessman, who are before this Court through instant pro bono publico writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking indulgence in the form of directions to order for CBI enquiry in the matter of examinations conducted by the Jiwaji University/respondent No.2 for B.Sc. nursing for the academic year 2018-2019.
2. Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General with Shri A.K.Nirankari, Government Advocate, on advance notice, points out that petitioner No.1 had earlier approached this Court earlier seeking indulgence in the matter of consideration of his representation dated 03.02.2021 by the Kuladhipati, Jiwaji University, Gwalior by filing W.P. No. 6926/2021. The representation 3 was since already decided on 02.09.2021, this Court closed the writ petition on 14.02.2022 as infructuous.
3. Shri Raghuvanshi further submits that by adding one businessman as the petitioner, petitioner K.P.Singh has now again approached this Court in the context of the subject matter of representation dated 03.02.2021 which has already been decided on 02.09.2021. Petitioner has not disclosed the fact of earlier W.P. No.6926/2021 and the order dated 14.02.2022 disposing of the petition. To bolster his submissions, Shri Raghuvanshi refers to the contents of Paragraph 3.9 of the writ petition. The same is quoted below:-
3.9 That, the complaints/ representations of the aforesaid mass illegalities and big scam were made by the petitioners to the chancellar under Section 13(4) of the Vishvidhyalay Adhiniyam who opined that there has been a big corruption in the aforesaid scam and false mark sheets have been issued which is a serious financial irregularities in a quid pro quo manner, as such F.I.R. should be registered but the representation made by the petitioner no.1 under section 13(4) of Adhiniyam, 1973 was disallowed. Copies of the said representations and a copy of the order issued by Hon'ble Chancellor is filed herewith and marked as Annexure- P/7 (Colly).
4. Shri Raghuvanshi submits that a bare reading of the said 4 pleading, suggests that the Chancellor of the University under Section 14(3) [not 13(4)] of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short "Adhiniyam") has opined that there has been big corruption in the alleged scam and false marksheets have been issued, which is a serious financial irregularities, therefore, FIR should be registered, but the representation made by the petitioner No.1 under Section 14(3) of the Adhiniyam was disallowed.
5. In other words, on one hand, the petitioner tried to impress upon the Court that Kuladhipati had opined about the aforesaid allegations and further that the representation was disallowed, whereas the decision of the Kuladhipati on 02.09.2021 does not speak of what is pleaded in the writ petition, as well-evident from the document Annexure R-1/1 in W.P. No.6926/2021. Petitioner has purposely not enclosed the decision of the Kuladhipati of 02.09.2021 in this writ petition. As such, the petitioners are not only guilty of suppression of fact, but also has indulged in an activity of distortion of facts with mala fide intention to mislead this Court through the instant PIL. Shri Raghuvanshi further submits that now mischievously petitioner has enclosed an internal correspondence between the Governor and the Kuladhipati dated 17.03.2021, which has nothing to do with the petitioner or his representation dated 03.02.2021. As such, in any case, for the reasons as aforesaid, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, admits that the order dated 02.09.2021 disposing of petitioner's representation dated 03.02.2021 has not either been mentioned or 5 annexed with writ petition. He also admits that there is no disclosure of earlier Writ Petition No.6926/2021 disposed of on 14.02.2022 in the light of the decision of the Kuladhipati dated 02.09.2021. However, he submits that mere non-disclosure of this fact shall not dilute the gravity of the writ petition as according to him, mass scale irregularities have been committed in the matter of conducting the examinations and issuance of the marksheets for B.Sc. Nursing students for the academic year 2018-2019. However, he does not dispute that FIR has already been filed by the authorities of the University themselves on 10.03.2021 and the same is pending investigation.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that petitioner is a busy body and with some ulterior motive and collateral purposes has approached this Court not only to create ripple, but pollute the atmosphere of the University through intervention of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Once his representation has already been decided and also University officials lodged an FIR, there was no justification for the petitioners to approach this Court again with scurrilous allegations and omnibus prayer. His conduct and demeanour both are condemnable. Oflate, this Court has experienced that indiscriminate number of PILs are being filed misusing the process of the Court to create disturbance under the pretext of public cause which otherwise is a camouflage.
8. We disapprove with condemnation such kind of litigation as the same not only tantamounts to misuse of process of law but also wastage of precious time of the Court. The petitioners appear to have 6 become Court Birds in the obtaining facts and circumstances. This has to be stopped. Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition with a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to be deposited by the petitioners with the Principal Registrar of this Court within one week, failing which, the same shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Abhi
Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI
Date: 2023.05.12 11:25:19
+05'30'