9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uidelines in relation to public interest litigations as stated in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan [2003 (8) TMI 470 - SUPREME COURT] the present is not a fit case for being entertained any further, in public interest. - W.P. (C) NO. 6609 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2012 - RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. Amit Agarwal and Pradeep Chhindra for the Petitioner. Rajeeve Mehra, Sumeet Pushkarna, Gaurav Sharma and Aditya Malhotra for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This writ petition, filed in public interest, by an Advocate practicing in this Court, draws the attention of this Court to the state of affairs prevailing in the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, established under The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI). It is stated, that the said Tribunal was constituted to hear appeals against the orders of the Adjudicating Officers and comprises of a Presiding Officer and two technical members; that only a sitting or a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court is eligible to be appointed as the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal; that the last Presiding Officer of the Tribunal retired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tee. In this context it is pleaded that though Rule 3 of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Presiding Officer and other Members) Rules, 2003 provides that appointment of Presiding Officer or Members shall not be invalidated merely for the reason of any vacancy or any defect in the constitution of the Selection Committee but the said Rule cannot provide a carte blanche power to the executive to remain cognizant of the defects and yet take actions with the presence of such defects only to subsequently claim the shelter of the said provision. 6. It is yet further contended that civil servants are being given illegal preference in the matter of appointment as Members of the Tribunal. Reliance in this regard is again placed on R. Gandhi's case (supra). 7. This petition came up first before us on 17th October, 2012 when we had directed the learned ASG appearing on advance notice to inform us as to what steps are being taken for selection of Presiding Officer and had also directed that the said appointment be expedited. 8. The learned ASG has today produced the records pertaining to appointment of the Presiding Officer before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner before the Tribunal and has never appeared before the Tribunal. He has however contended that she as an Advocate is entitled to maintain a challenge to statutory provisions in public interest and reference in this regard is made to S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1981] Supp. (1) SCC 87, S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India [1987] 1 SCC 124 and to Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India [2003] 1 SCC 49 (where amendments of the year 2002 to the CPC were challenged) and Pareena Swarup v. Union of India [2008] 88 SCL 1 (SC). 14. The counsel however again fairly admits that in none of the said judgments the aforesaid question was raised or decided. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not for what can logically be deduced therefrom. (See Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P.) Ltd. [2003] 2 SCC 111, Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate [2005] 2 SCC 489 and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab AIR 2006 SC 2571). Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem [1901] A.C. 495 said, " The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances lead us to suspect the motives in filing the present petition, as aforesaid intended to bring the functioning of the Tribunal to a standstill. 17. The Supreme Court, in Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [2002] 1 SCC 33, while holding that the orthodox Rule regarding locus standi, that rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person (except in the case of a writ for habeas corpus or quo warranto) has undergone a sea change in the context of writ petitions filed in public interest, still observed that a mere stranger having no right would still not have locus standi. The Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) also summarized the law in this regard to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury and generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others. Reliance can also be placed on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad [2012] 4 SCC 407. 18. We may however clarify that public interest litigation affecting the administration of justice, at the instance of the Advocates practicing in the court/fora and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the deprived, the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. (v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government, from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depend on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. (vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a Court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
