Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yunus Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 14 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11304 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
YUNUS KHAN S/O SHAMSHER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 55
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: JOURNALIST R/O SUSNER
TEHSIL SUSNER, AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PRASANNA R. BHATNAGAR, COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER).
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTION LOK
SHIKSHA SANCHANALAY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT NEAR CHETAK BRIDGE, GAUTAM
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR OFFICE, AGAR
MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DEO OFFICE, AGAR,
DIST. AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, SUSNER BLOCK,
SUSNER EDUCATION BLOCK, TEHSIL SUSNER,
DIST. AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PR I N CI PAL, GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL SOYATKALA, DIST. AGAR
MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. BALCHAND BAGRI, OCCUPATION: FORMER
Signature Not Verified
BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SUSNER DIST.
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 6/15/2023
2:48:32 PM
2
AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. MRS. KRISHAN SEN OCCUPATION: TEACHER,
GOVT. H.S. SCHOOL SUSNER DIST. AGAR MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANAND SONI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
STATE).
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of 'Public Interest Litigation', has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to take penal action against the persons responsible i.e. respondents No. 7 and 8 for collusion and doing corruption, causing loss to the public exchequer and depriving students of Lodhakhedi and Salariya from their Fundamental Right of Education enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution of India, 1950. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought to be issued against respondents No. 7 and 8 and further direct recovery of the amount of salary which has been drawn by respondent No. 8 without attending the duty and other consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen of the country and a permanent resident of Tehsil Susner, District Agar-Malwa (MP). He is working as a Journalist.
3. At the outset, Shri Anand Soni, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State submitted that this public interest litigation is not maintainable, since the part of the prayer clause relates to service matter and as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 6/15/2023 2:48:32 PM 3 Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273, wherein it has been held that ''in service matters, PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the 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. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction , often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PIL, official documents are being annexed without indicating as to how 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. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such case would get exposed to find out whether it was the bonafide venture. Whenever, such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petition, but also to impose exemplary cost as it prima-facie gives impression of oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the Court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motives do not have approval of the Courts''.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted the petitioner has approached this Court seeking reliefs, without approaching the competent Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 6/15/2023 2:48:32 PM 4 authority first by filing appropriate representation/application. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
5 . In Neetu Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 614 , the Apex Court has held 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 in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other malafide object. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the appellant, the writ petition cannot itself is maintainable and to that extent the High Court's order cannot be maintained''.
6. The Supreme Court of India in its compilation of Guidelines to be followed for entertaining letters/petitions received as PIL has categorically laid down that the cases falling under the categories mentioned shall not be entertained as PILs and these may be returned to the petitioners or filed in the PIL Cell, as the case may be in which Service matter and those pertaining to Pension and Gratuity cannot be entertained.
7. In the case of Dr. B.Singh Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2004(3) SCC 363, the Apex Court has held that ''in admitting PIL's, the Courts have to strike a balance between two conflicting interests:(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others - if not properly and strictly regulated al least in certain vital areas or spheres and abuse averted, PIL becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, and in cases involving challenges to appointments made to public office to malign not only an incumbent to be in office but demoralize and deter reasonable or sensible and prudent people even agreeing to accept highly sensitive and responsible offices for fear of being Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 6/15/2023 2:48:32 PM 5 brought into disrepute with baseless allegations ; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, 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''.
8. The Court before admitting a Public Interest Litigation has to be satisfied about
(a) the credentials of the applicant;
(b) prima-facie, correctness of nature of information given by him. (c ) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. There must be real and genuine cause of action in the litigation and concrete and credible basis for maintaining a cause before the Court and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. The credibility of such claims or litigation should be adjudged on the creditworthiness of the material averred and not even on the credentials claimed of the person moving the Courts in such cases.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. On perusal of the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner is a Journalist by profession. We find that before seeking the writ of mandamus for reliefs claimed in the present writ petition, a detailed, specific and clear representation has to be submitted by the petitioner to the authority competent to decide the same instead of directly approaching this Court. (See Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 6/15/2023 2:48:32 PM 6 Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society Jaipur, (2013) 3 MPLJ 591 and Ranchodlal vs. State of MP and Ors., 2014 (2) MPLJ 610).
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Public Interest Litigation and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 6/15/2023
2:48:32 PM