Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs State Of M.P. Through Agriculture ... on 22 June, 2020
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: S.C.Sharma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Writ Petition No.8478/2020(PIL)
(Mahesh Garg Vs. State of M. P. and Others)
-1-
Indore, dated 22/06/2020
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent / State.
The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition by enclosing some news paper clippings stating that the wheat procured by State of Madhya Pradesh is lying in open and in larger public interest to ensure that the food grain is transported immediately appropriate order or direction be issued.
The basis of the present writ petition are certainly some undated news paper clippings. The learned Additional Advocate General on advance notice has submitted Wheat Procurement Report dated 21/06/2020 and the same reads as under:-
1- Total number of seller farmers - 29350
2- Total Procurement - 378696 MT
3- Total Transportation - 309076 MT
4- Today's Transportation - 8179 MT
5- Pending quantity for Transportation - 69620 MT
6- Payment - Total number of farmers - 25314
Amount Rs.5,32,78,61,760.00
The aforesaid report makes it very clear that most of the wheat procured has already been transported and he has also furnished the details of payment made to the farmers.
The information submitted by the petitioner is not under the Right to Information Act, 2005 nor based upon any information supplied by the Government. Based upon some undated news paper clippings, the present petition has been filed. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Writ Petition No.8478/2020(PIL) (Mahesh Garg Vs. State of M. P. and Others) -2- The apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B. reported in 2004(3) SCC 349 in paragraphs No.14 and 16 has held as under:-
"14. 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. Court has to strike 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 busy bodies 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.
16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so- called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Writ Petition No.8478/2020(PIL) (Mahesh Garg Vs. State of M. P. and Others) -3- the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts."
The apex Court in the case of Rohit Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2015 (13) SCC 702 has held as under:-
"1. This petition purporting to be in public interest has been filed by a member of the legal fraternity seeking directions against the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case pertaining to recovery of light machine gun, which is said to have been stolen from the army according to reports published in two newspapers, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation to ensure that the real culprits who are behind such theft of army arms and ammunition endangering the integrity and sovereignty of the country may be brought to book and action may be taken against them in accordance with law. The only basis for the petitioner coming to this Court are two newspaper reports dated 25-1-2004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report appeared. On enquiry from the learned counsel, we have learnt that the petitioner is a young advocate having been in practice for a year or two. The Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, have been arrayed as party respondents. In the newspaper reports, there is no allegation either against the Union of India or against the Chief Minister.
2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public- spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12-2-2004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e on 7-10-2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Writ Petition No.8478/2020(PIL) (Mahesh Garg Vs. State of M. P. and Others) -4- having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner.
3. In this view, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of rupees one thousand."
This Court on 15/02/2018 in Writ Petition No.19367/2017 (Dr. Tapan Bhattacharya Vs. Union of India and Others) in paragraphs No.16 has held as under:-
"16. For the above mentioned reasons, we are of the view that the present writ petition, which is only based on the news-paper report is not maintainable. As already stated, no effort has been made by the petitioner before us to enquire and collect necessary data and material in respect of the events and no attempt has been made by him to verify the factual position. The legal position as referred above has been totally ignored. We are constrained to observe that such a casual approach in the matter of public interest does more harm than good. The fact that petitioner is Advocate makes it all the more painful. Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained on the basis of speculative foundation and premises so as to make a roving inquiry. The writ petition does not contain the factual pre- equesites nor any reasoning in support of the bald assertion that the provisions of Cr.P.C. are not met out. Bald and general allegations as contained in the writ petition are of no help. In the absence of requisite material, it is not possible to entertain this writ petition."
In light of the aforesaid judgments, as the petition has been filed only on the basis of some undated newspaper clippings, this Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The State Government has produced relevant data before this Court in respect of wheat procurement and this Court does not find HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Writ Petition No.8478/2020(PIL) (Mahesh Garg Vs. State of M. P. and Others) -5- any reason to interfere in the matter, however, the State is also directed to make all possible endevour to ensure that wheat procured in the State of Madhya Pradesh is transported safely to the warehouses and other locations as early as possible keeping in view the fast approaching rainy season.
With the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(S. C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
Digitally signed by
Tej Prakash Vyas
Date: 2020.06.23
13:10:14 +05'30'