Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(c) whether the procedure adopted at the time of posting Mr. Munni Lal Paswan, ADJ as Special Judge, CBI, Patna (Fodder Scam Cases) on 22.06.2005, needs to be relooked by the Patna High Court.
(a) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS WERE MAINTAINABLE AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:
BACKGROUND FACTS:
Large-scale defalcation of public funds, fraudulent transactions and falsification of accounts, of around Rs.500 crores, came to light in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Bihar. This scam took place during the period 1977 to 1996. A similar situation existed in the Education, Corporation and Fisheries Departments. By judgment dated 11.03.1996 delivered by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Writ Petition No.459 of 1996 the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, took away the investigation from the State police and entrusted it to CBI. The said decision of the Patna High Court was challenged by the State vide Civil Appeal Nos. 5177-81 of 1996. By judgment dated 19.03.96, this Court observed that the exercise of the power under Article 226 in a public interest litigation was not to give any advantage to a political party or group of people but it was done to investigate corruption in public administration, misconduct by the bureaucracy, fabrication of official records and misappropriation of public funds. Therefore, this Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Patna High Court [See: State of Bihar and Another v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party and Another  (1996) 3 SCC 682.

(c) WHETHER THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED AT THE TIME OF POSTING MR. MUNNI LAL PASWAN, ADJ AS SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, PATNA (FODDER SCAM CASES) ON 22.06.2005, NEEDS TO BE RELOOKED BY THE PATNA HIGH COURT:

Institutional autonomy of the High Court on its administrative side under Article 233 and Article 235 is a well-known concept. It is based on public trust and confidence. Existence of the power, as a concept, is different from exercise of power.

Promotions and posting of judicial officers fall within its domain on its administrative side. At the same time it is important to note that choice of the candidate falls in the domain of public law and, therefore, that choice has to be exercised on some standard, failing which judicial review steps in. Standards of evaluation in matters of promotion and posting have to be uniformly applied otherwise arbitrariness comes in. Integration of the evaluation process has to be maintained. If different standards or no standards are applied it breaks the integrity of the process which brings in discrimination and arbitrariness which violates Article 14 and therefore judicial review.

In the present case we are required to see whether the standards applied to evaluate Mr. J.P. Ratnesh and Mr. Ram Niwas Prasad, trial judges, appointed as Special Judges vide Minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee dated 22.06.2005 were equally applied while posting Mr. Munni Lal Paswan as Special Judge, CBI, Patna (fodder scam cases).

By order dated 26.10.2005 this Court directed the Registrar General, Patna High Court, to forward this Court A.C.Rs recorded by the Inspecting Judges of the High Court in the case of Mr. Munni Lal Paswan. In reply the Registrar General has stated as follows:

To sum up, the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court is requested to convene a meeting of Administrative Judges and have a fresh look at the evaluation in the case of posting of Sri Paswan as Special Judge for C.B.I. (Fodder Scam Cases) at Patna, vide Minutes of Meeting dated 22.06.2005. At the same time, Union of India is directed to reconsider approaching the High Court against the decision of the Tribunal dated 2.7.2004 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the light of what is stated above.