Chattisgarh High Court
Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2017
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Sanjay K. Agrawal
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on: 03.03.2017
Order passed on: 06.04.2017
WPPIL No. 35 of 2017
1. Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party (Registered Political Party Under
The Provisions Of The R. P. Act, 1951 By The Election
Commission Of India) Through The President Anil Dubey,
S/o Shri N. K. Dubey, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sunder
Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
2. The Prime Minister Office, North Block, Near President
Secretariat, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
4. The Secretary, General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
5. The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
6. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7. The Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, Police Station Rakhi,
New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
8. Deepali Designs & Exhibits Co. Pvt. Through The Managing
Director Vinay Mittal, R/o 8 North Punjab Keshri, New Delhi
110035
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Shri Y.S.Thakur, Addl. A.G.
For Respondent/UOI : Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
C A V Order
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
01. Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party, petitioner herein, a registered
political party under Section 29(1) of the Representation of
People's Act, 1951, has filed this public interest litigation seeking
various reliefs stating that the unfortunate incident of falling of the
dome which was being prepared for the Hon'ble Prime Minister to
address the public, be investigated by the Central Bureau of
Investigation or National Investigation Agency and action be also
taken against the officials involved in erection of such dome,
which was the outcome of corrupt means used by the officials of
the State Government in connivance with respondent No.8.
02. Mr. Satish Chand Verma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that on 9.5.2015 Hon'ble Prime Minister of
India was scheduled to come and to address a gathering at New
Raipur and for which a dome/stage was being erected by the
State Government through respondent No.8, which fell down
before arrival of the Hon'ble Prime Minister and it is thus apparent
that the dome in question which was being erected after incurring
huge expenditure was of low quality and in this process, corrupt
and illegal means were adopted by the officials of the State
Government in collusion with respondent No.8. Since it relates to
the safety and security of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, this matter
may be directed to be investigated by some independent agency
like C.B.I. or N.I.A.
03. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State
would submit that the petitioner is a registered political party and
as such, writ petition at the end of a political party cannot be
entertained. Furthermore, this petition has been filed after two
years from the date of falling of the dome/stage and as such, the
same cannot be entertained at this stage. He would also submit
that Magisterial enquiry has already been conducted and report
has been submitted to the State Government which is pending
consideration.
04. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone
through the record with utmost circumspection.
05. We shall first examine the nature and scope of public interest
litigation.
06. The Supreme Court in the case of Janta Dal Vs. H.S.
Chowdhary and others1 has clearly held that PIL cannot be
entertained for personal gain or private profit or for political
motives or for any oblique consideration, and also warned that the
Court must be careful in entertaining public interest litigations. In
paragraphs 109, 110 and 111 it has been observed as under:
109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide
and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL
1 (1992) 4 SCC 305
will alone have a locus standi and can approach the
Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy,
suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but
not a person for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a
vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought
before the court for vindicating any personal grievance,
deserves rejection at the threshold.
110. It is depressing to note that on account of such
trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts,
innumerable days are wasted which time otherwise
could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the
genuine litigants. Though we are second to none in
fostering and developing the newly invented concept of
PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the
poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose
fundamental rights are infringed and violated and
whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and
unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion
that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances
relating to civil matters involving properties worth
hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in
which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under
untold agony and persons sentenced to life
imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years,
persons suffering from the undue delay in service
matters, Government or private persons awaiting the
disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public
revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are
locked up, detenus expecting their release from the
detention orders etc. etc. - are all standing in a long
serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting
into the courts and having their grievances redressed,
the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or
officious interveners having absolutely no public interest
except for personal gain or private profit either for
themselves or as proxy of others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the
queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of
public interest litigation, and get into the Courts by filing
vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally
waste the valuable time of Courts and as result of which
the queue standing outside the doors of the Court never
moves which piquant situation creates a frustration in
the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they
lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.
111. In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) "the
Courts must be careful in entertaining public interest
litigations" or in the words of Sarkaria, J. "the
application of busy bodies should be rejected at the
threshold itself" and as Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out,
"the doors of the Courts should not be ajar for such
vexatious litigants".
07. In the case of Kunga Nima Lepcha and others Vs. State of
Sikkim and others2 the Supreme Court has held that initiation of
investigation is purely an executive function and observed in para-16
as under:
"16. While it is true that in the past, the Supreme
Court of India as well as the various High Courts have
indeed granted remedies relating to investigations in
criminal cases, we must make a careful note of the
petitioners' prayer in the present case. In the past,
writ jurisdiction has been used to monitor the
progress of ongoing investigations or to transfer
ongoing investigations from one investigating agency
to another. Such directions have been given when a
specific violation of fundamental rights is shown,
2 (2010) 4 SCC 513
which could be the consequence of apathy or
partiality on part of investigating agencies among
other reasons. In some cases, judicial intervention by
way of writ jurisdiction is warranted on account of
obstructions to the investigation process such as
material threats to witnesses, the destruction of
evidence or undue pressure from powerful interests.
In all of these circumstances, the writ court can only
play a corrective role to ensure that the integrity of the
investigation is not compromised. However, it is not
viable for a writ court to order the initiation of an
investigation. That function clearly lies in the domain
of the executive and it is upto the investigating
agencies themselves to decide whether the material
produced before them provides a sufficient basis to
launch an investigation."
08. In the matter of Jafar Imam Naqvi Vs. Election Commission of
India3 the Supreme Court observed in para-10 as under:
"10. Before parting with the case, it may be stated that
public interest litigation was initially used by this Court
as a tool to take care of certain situations which
related to the poor and under-privileged who were not
in a position to have access to the Court. Thereafter,
from time to time, the concept of public interest
litigation expanded with the change of time and the
horizon included the environment and ecology, the
atrocities faced by individuals at the hands of the
authorities, financial scams and various other
categories including eligibility of the people holding
high offices without qualification. But a public interest
litigation pertaining to speeches delivered during
election campaign, we are afraid, cannot be put on the
pedestal of a real public interest litigation. There are
3 (2014) 15 SCC 420
laws to take care of it. In the name of a constitutional
safeguard entering into this kind of arena, in our
convinced opinion, would not be within the
constitutional parameters."
09. Recently in the case of Santosh Singh Vs. Union of India and
another4 the Supreme Court in para-19 held as under:
"19. There is a tendency on the part of public interest
petitioners to assume that every good thing which
society should aspire to achieve can be achieved
through the instrumentality of the court. The judicial
process provides remedies for constitutional or legal
infractions. Public interest litigation allows a relaxation
of the strict rules of locus standi. However, the court
must necessarily abide by the parameters which
govern a nuanced exercise of judicial power. Hence,
where an effort is made to bring issues of governance
before the court, the basic touch stone on which the
invocation of jurisdiction must rest is whether the issue
can be addressed within the framework of law or the
Constitution. Matters of policy are entrusted to the
executive arm of the State. The court is concerned
with the preservation of the rule of law."
10. Having examined the scope of interference in PIL, turning back to
the facts of the case, it would appear that the State Government has
already initiated magisterial enquiry on the said incident and the report
has been submitted to the State Government, which is pending
consideration with the State Government, as is apparent from the
documents filed by the petitioner with this petition.
11. The Constitution Bench in the matter of State of West Bengal and
others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
4 (2016) 8 SCC 253
Bengal and others5 has clearly held that extraordinary power must be
exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it
becomes necessary to provide credibility to and instill confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have national and
international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary
for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. In
para-70 it has been observed as under:
"70. Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers
conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution,
while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind
certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of
these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the
power under the said Articles requires great caution in
its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a
direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case
is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be
laid down to decide whether or not such power should
be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated
that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of
routine or merely because a party has levelled some
allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in
exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instill confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have national
and international ramifications or where such an order
may be necessary for doing complete justice and
enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI
would be flooded with a large number of cases and
with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly
investigate even serious cases and in the process lose
5 (2010) 3 SCC 571
its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory
investigations."
12. In the present case, the matter has already been investigated and
the report has been submitted to the State Government, which is
pending consideration. The petitioner, which is a political party, seems
to have filed this petition only for gaining political milage, that too after
the delay of two years of the alleged incident impleading Prime
Minister's Office as party respondent. The office of the Prime Minister is
neither a proper nor a necessary party in this P.I.L. and only to gain
political milage, the office of Prime Minister has been impleaded. There
is no element of public interest in this P.I.L.
13. In the result, the petition being bereft of any substance is liable to
be dismissed with cost and it is dismissed as such with cost of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), payable to the High
Court Legal Aid Committee.
Sd/ Sd/
(Pritinker Diwaker) (Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Khan
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 35 of 2017
Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party ---- Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh --- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Note Order directing inquiry by C.B.I/N.I.A. can be passed only in exceptional situation. Such power and jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly and in most appropriate cases. P.I.L. dismissed with cost.
lh-ch-vkbZ-@,u-vkbZ-,- ds }kjk tkap ds vkns'k dsoy viokfnd fLFkfr esa ikfjr fd;s tk ldrs gSA bl izdkj dh 'kfDr rFkk {ks=kf/kdkj dk iz;ksx de ls de ,oe~ mi;qDr ekeys esa gh fd;k tkuk pkfg,A tu fgr ;kfpdk lO;; [kkfjt dh x;hA