Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Mittal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 September, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No. 9055 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 9055 of 2012 Date of decision : 20.9.2012 Rahul Mittal .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present:- Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate and Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate for respondents No. 4, 6, 11, 27, 60 to 62, 70, 73, 80, 87, 88. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for respondents No. 5, 7 to 19, 23 to 25, 28 to 31, 33 to 42, 44 to 52, 54 to 56 to 59, 63, 64, 66 to 69, 71, 72, 74-79, 81 to 86 and 89.
Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.26 Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for respondent No. 43
---
Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (oral) Separate replies filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and other respondents appearing through Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate, are taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following primary relief :-
"Issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to look into the embezzlement of Rice being done by the Rice CWP No. 9055 of 2012 -2- Millers of Punjab and further issue directions for investigation of the embezzlement/scam by the CBI."
It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Rice Millers i.e. respondents No. 4 to 90, after milling the paddy, have not supplied rice to respondent No.2-FCI as per the specifications of the contract agreement under which paddy was supplied to them for milling. In Para No. 5 of the petition, names of 7 Rice Shellers have been given stating that these Rice Shellers have not supplied any rice to the FCI.
Reply has been filed by the State of Punjab through an affidavit of S.S. Johal, Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab, Chandigarh. In Para No.5 of the reply it is stated as under:-
"That the contents of this para are wrong hence denied. It has been falsely stated that the seven mills as mentioned in this para have received paddy and have not further given any rice to FCI. A mere reading of Annexure R-1/2 which pertains to the custom milling of paddy for these mills for the last 5 years agency wise totally negates the assertion of the petitioner. The remaining contents of this para are wrong hence denied."
As per documents placed on the record, the paddy received by the Rice Shellers upto the year 2010-11 for milling, was milled and the rice, as per specification, was supplied to the FCI.
A reading of the pleadings indicates that the petition filed is totally vague and without any substance. False allegations have been levelled against more than 86 Rice Shellers/its owners. In this petition it is no where stated that the petitioner was an employee of a Rice Sheller CWP No. 9055 of 2012 -3- known as' Shiv Shankar Rice Mill' at Village Jalal, District Bathinda.
On going through the replies filed by private respondents, it is revealed that the petitioner is an employee of the above said Shiv Shankar Rice Mill. On 28.3.2012 the above Rice Mill was subjected to physical verification and during verification 17315 bags of paddy were found short. To say so, a reference has been made to Annexure R-5/1 wherein it is stated that when the Rice Mill was put to physical verification, Rahul Kumar was present had refused to sign the physical verification report. It is further mentioned in the reply that against owner of the above said Rice Mill, an FIR for embezzlement of paddy was registered on 1.4.2012 under Section 420 and 409 IPC (Annexure R-5/1A). The petitioner with a mala fide intention neither impleaded the above said Rice Mill as a party in this writ petition nor disclosed that he was an employee of that Mill nor made any averment in the petition that the said Mill was subjected to physical verification and was found to have embezzled the paddy allotted to it. On the other hand impleaded all the Rice Shellers in the area as respondents by levelling vague allegations, only to harass them. Such like petitioners are required to be dealt with heavy hand. The public interest litigation jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be misused by such nefarious individuals to achieve their own goals. The present petition is the one which is a clear misuse of the PIL jurisdiction filed by a person who has not come to the Court with clean hands and tried to misuse the judicial system for grinding his own axe. Such like petitions deserves to be thrown away at the very thresh hold with heavy costs.
CWP No. 9055 of 2012 -4-
In similar situation, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 20963 of 2010, decided on January 20, 2011, has observed as under:-
"From the centuries the Indian Society always depicted two basic values of human life i.e. truth and non-violence. Persons like Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekanand, Gautam Budha etc. always guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constitute an integral part of justice - delivery system without which justice cannot be done. In pre- independence era, the people feel proud to tell truth in the Courts irrespecitve of the consequences which they may have to face. But, in the post independence period drastic changes can be seen in our value system. Today, materialism has overshadowed our old values and everyone is concerned with his personal gain. People have become so greedy that they do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood for their personal gain. People involved in the litigations conceals truth from the Court and take the shelter of misrepresentation and suppression of real facts to mislead the Court to get an order passed in their favour.
What treatment should be given to such like litigants, an answer was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114, in which, it was held as under:-
"A party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. A person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim."CWP No. 9055 of 2012 -5-
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner is burdened with a costs of ` 50,000/-which he shall deposit with the Secretary, Legal Services Committee of the High Court, within three months from today, failing which the Secretary shall initiate recovery proceedings for recovery of costs as land revenue.
Sd/-
(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice Sd/-
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge 20.9.2012 Ashwani