2020 (6) TMI 106 - HC - Income Tax

Public interest litigation - apprehension of misuse of provident fund scheme - Seeking deduction of TDS from the provident fund account of the Retd. Employees who have availed the option to continue their GPF account - respondents be directed to recover the tax from the subscribers from whom account respondent have failed to deduct TDS - HELD THAT - Indisputably, the petitioner is not a retired government servant. It is thus clear that the petitioner failed to show that he is acting bonafide and having sufficient interest with the proceedings of PIL. We are of the opinion that the amendment dated 28.06.2012 (Annex.3) made by the State Government whereby the Scheme impugned is implemented, is not invalid or contrary to the Rules. We are of the considered view that no ground for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this petition filed by way of Public Interest Litigation, is made out as the issue raised in the instant petition does not fall within the purview of Public Interest Litigation but is nothing more than a publicity interest litigation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the amendments made by the State Government to the provident fund scheme.
2. Scope of misuse by retired employees under the scheme.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a petitioner who is not a retired government servant.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the amendments made by the State Government to the provident fund scheme. The petitioner alleged that the amendments changed the basic structure of the fund and allowed retired employees to deposit various benefits in their provident fund account. The Court examined the amendments and held that they were made validly under Article 309 of the Constitution and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The Court found no illegality in the impugned amendments and dismissed the petitioner's challenge to their validity.

2. The petitioner raised concerns about the potential misuse of the scheme by retired employees due to a lack of proper clarification between the provident fund accounts of serving and retired employees. The petitioner argued that retired employees could take advantage of taxation laws meant for serving employees. However, the Court did not find sufficient evidence to support these allegations. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a bona fide interest in the proceedings as he was not a retired government servant. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner's concerns regarding misuse were unsubstantiated.

3. The Court discussed the jurisdiction of the Court in Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and emphasized the importance of ensuring that such petitions serve genuine public interest rather than personal motives or publicity interests. The Court cited a previous judgment highlighting the need for PILs to provide trustworthy and serious information without vague or reckless allegations. In this case, the Court found that the petitioner's PIL did not meet the criteria of a genuine public interest litigation and characterized it as a "publicity interest litigation." As a result, the Court dismissed the PIL for lacking substance and failing to demonstrate grounds for invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In conclusion, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner challenging the amendments to the provident fund scheme, citing the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of misuse by retired employees and the petitioner's failure to establish a bona fide interest in the matter. The Court emphasized the importance of genuine public interest in PILs and clarified that petitions lacking substance or serving personal motives would not be entertained.