9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2018 (GM-RES-PIL) - - - Dated:- 18-7-2018 - MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI, CJ AND MRf. R. DEVDAS, J. For The Petitioner : Dr. Savio Pereira, Party-in-Person For The Respondent : Sri Unni Krishnan M, CGSC And Sri Harish B N Advocate ORDER This petition has been filed, purportedly as a public interest litigation (PIL), while seeking the following reliefs: 1. To Direct Competition Commission of India and Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) to debar the RETIRED OFFICIALS (including Vinod Dhal and K K Sharma) from practicing as an Advocate directly or indirectly, individually or through their law firms, in spirit of Part-VI Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules; 2. To Direct Bar Council of India to conduct an suo moto inquiry and Delete the Licence of Vinod Dhall and K K Sharma and other retired members of CCI for professional misconduct and bringing the profession into disrepute; 3. To Direct Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to prohibit Vinod Dhall and K K Sharma and/or any other former/retired Member to practice before CCI (act/appear/plead) and/or represent any party in any way; 4. To Direct Secretary Ministry of Corporate Affairs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 43744/2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad that was decided on 14.02.2018 and a copy of the order so passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad was enclosed with the said reply. However, such enclosure has not been annexed with the document filed as Annexure-B before us. The petitioner attempts to submit that he has not received any such copy; but there is no such averment in the petition. Going through the record, we have noticed another intriguing factor that even while seeking reliefs against the aforesaid two persons and making all the allegations against them, the petitioner has chosen not even to implead them as parties to this petition. In regard to this aspect, on being queried, the petitioner would submit that the main grievance is against the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Appellate Tribunal and the principal relief is also claimed against them. The petitioner seeks to further submit that appearance of the aforesaid persons before the Competition Commission and the Competition Appellate Tribunal is established by the orders passed by the Commission. The petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given set of facts and overall circumstances, the inference, if any, could only be of a conscious omission to implead the said persons as parties to this petition. The petition, as framed and filed before this Court, has obviously left several things to be desired. This is apart from the fundamental fact that the issue, as sought to be raised, itself does not appear to be worth taking up in the PIL jurisdiction of this Court. It is also questionable that the petitioner has chosen not to annex the copy of the enclosure sent with the reply dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure-B). It was clearly pointed out in the reply that the identical issues were raised before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.Nos.42223 and 43744/2017 that was decided on 14.02.2018. In the said reply, it was distinctly stated as under: We, on behalf of our client, further state that it is palpable that the said legal notice re-agitates identical issues that were raised in Writ Petition Nos.42223 and 43744 of 2017. The Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad has passed a detailed judgment dated 14.02.2018 on these Writ Petitions. (Copy of Judgment dated 14.02.2018 enclosed). Petitioners of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner, though has filed this PIL petition with several other annexures, but has chosen not to place before us the said order dated 14.02.2018. Although we are not persuaded to accept the submission that such copy was not received by the petitioner as enclosure with the reply dated 22.05.2018, but if these submissions are taken on their face value, the question still remains that the present PIL petitioner, by the very nature of the jurisdiction sought to be invoked, whether carried out necessary research before approaching the Court? For all the factors and circumstances noticed above, we are clearly of the view that the present one is yet another petition abusing the process of this Court in the PIL jurisdiction. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [2010] 3 SCC 402, with reference to several of the past decisions, and while reiterating that the PIL jurisdiction is required to be dealt with consciously and only for genuine public causes; and while issuing several directions to curb the unnecessary approach to the Constitutional Courts in the name of PIL so as to maintain the purity and sanctity of PIL jurisdiction, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the frivolous public interest litigation petitions by two methods-one monetary and second, non-monetary. 148. The first category of cases is that where the Court on the filing of frivolous public interest litigation petitions, dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of Punjab, the Court concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts. 149. In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda the Court warned that (SCC p. 745, para 18) it is of utmost importance that those who invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed . 150. In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India this Court went a step further by imposing a monetary penalty against an Advocate for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. The Court found that the petition was devoid of public interest, and instead labelled it as publicity interest litigation . Thus, the Court dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court under the garb of public interest litigation and observed (SCC p. 595, para 12) that the [p]ublic interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. ... The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations... 156. In Thaware case the Court encouraged the imposition of a non-monetary penalty against a PIL petition filed by a member of the bar. The Court directed the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation. This direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to disbar members found guilty of filing frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions. Several of the features which are indicative of the questionable character of a petition, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
