9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phs. It further appears from the supplementary affidavit dated 21.04.2022, in paragraph 3 that prior to him one Late Diwan Indranil Sinha had sent representations with all the details of the companies and documents before the Director, C.B.I as also to other constitutional bodies. Whether, merely on the ground of non-compliance of technicality for filing the Public Interest Litigation, should the Public Interest Litigation be thrown out by the High Court even if incriminating materials have surfaced? - HELD THAT:- Reference in this regard may be made to Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 wherein it has been stated that only those matter shall be treated as Public Interest Litigation, which involves substantial public interest at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and for this the Bench hearing the matter shall ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the Public Interest Litigation - prima facie consideration for furnishing such detail, the genuineness of public harm or public injury as also issue of personal gain or oblique motive is required to be seen. This Court, therefore, is of the view that even if there is criteria u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7] For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. For the E.D. : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate ORDER With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matters has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or visual quality. 2. At the outset it requires to refer herein that three Public Interest Litigations being W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019; W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 and W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 have been filed by Arun Kumar Dubey and Shiv Shankar Sharma respectively and have been ordered to be heard side by side. 3. In W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the Director, Directorate of Enforcement and the Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement to investigate the fifteen FIRs in Khunti Police Station and one in Arki Police Station Case pertaining to involvement of Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and others registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11, 12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021, direction has been sought u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the Companies against which allegations have been made in the writ petition. The Registrar of Companies has filed an affidavit informing this Court that he can provide details of only four Companies which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the said respondent. So far other 45 companies are concerned, they fall within the jurisdiction of RoC, Patna, Delhi, Haryana, Chhatisgarh, Cuttuck (Orissa) as well as Kolkata (West Bengal). The Enforcement Directorate (respondent no.5) was also noticed, however, Mr.Amit Kumar Das learned counsel for the said Department, waived notice on its behalf. Today, when the matter was called out, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appeared for the Enforcement Directorate and informed that after the aforesaid order, the Enforcement Directorate has conducted operations in which the materials collected during such operations have made certain startling revelations connected with the subject matter of this Public Interest Litigation. He has further submitted that before deliberation, he would request the Court to have a look at those materials. He further submits that since the operations are still going on, it will not be prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documents have been submitted for perusal of the Court so that the materials, which have been surfaced during investigation by the Enforcement Directorate may be perused, since, it would not be appropriate, at this stage, to bring the documents on record, reason being that, the investigation is in progress, as such, disclosure of the documents would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issue and thought it proper that the Court before proceeding to open the sealed cover, deem it fit and proper to decide the objection raised on behalf of the Respondent-State of Jharkhand. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question, which is required to be decided by this Court at this stage, is as to whether the Court can look into the documents and materials produced by the prosecution before the Court without first confronting the accused with these materials. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram-Vs.-Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, wherein, at paragraph 55, it has been laid down as hereun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Jharkhand assisted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General of the State, has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ application, on the ground of lack of credentials of the writ petitioners. He has relied upon several judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court. He further submits that it is not a case where the investigation is to be transferred to the special Agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation, since there is no F.I.R. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the credentials of the writ petitioner which has been taken as a ground for dismissal of the writ petition is not worth to be considered, since the embezzlement of public money is involved and the Secretary (Mines) of the State of Jharkhand has been apprehended from whose possession huge money has been recovered. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel, has submitted that the State is making an objection for investigation of the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation, but, very surprisingly no F.IR. has been instituted by the State, even though the Secreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken up tomorrow, as such following order was passed: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C to Advocate General, appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that there is typographical error in order dated 17.05.2022, wherein the year of Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 4349 of 2022, has been shown to be 2021 instead of 2022. This Court, after going through the record, has found that typographical error has crept up in order dated 17.05.2022, wherein year of Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 4349 of 2022, has wrongly been typed as 2021 instead of 2022. Accordingly, order dated 17.05.2022 is modified to the extent that year of Interlocutory Application shall be read as 2022, being passed in I.A. No. 4349 of 2022. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, has submitted that an affidavit has been filed in order to bring the facts, which were argued on the previous date, on oath. Upon this, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that since the aforesaid affidavit has been filed today itself, therefore, time may be allowed to go through the contents of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ode. Emphasis Supplied 5. When the matter was taken up on 24th May, 2022, it was informed that the S.L.Ps. being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9729-9830/2022, preferred against order dated 13.05.2022 and 17.05.202 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 have been disposed of. The order passed by Hon ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9729-9830/2022 reads as under: 1. A batch of three writ petitions is pending before the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand: (i) In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4632 of 2019; the petitioner, Arun Kumar Dubey, seeks, inter alia, a direction to the Directorate of Enforcement to investigate 15 FIRs pertaining to alleged offences arising out of the disbursement of MANREGA funds to Khunti Zila Parishad implicating offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 429, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11, 12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021; the petitioner, Shiv Shankar Sharma seeks a direction for an investigation into the alleged transfer of SLP(C) 9729-9730/2022 3 monies by the Soren family in the names of respondent Nos 8 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have heard Mr Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the sixth respondent (Shri Hemant Soren) and Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement. 7. The sequence of events narrated in the earlier part of the present order indicates that the High Court had, by its order dated 13 May 2022, specifically noted that it would consider the primary objection to the maintainability of Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021 and deal with the merits thereafter, if required, on the next date of hearing. 8. Mr Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has adverted to the provisions of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, more particularly the provisions of Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B and 5. SLP(C) 9729-9730/2022 9. Since the High Court has observed in its order dated 13 May 2022 that it would deal with the maintainability of the petition upfront, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate in the interests of justice that the Division Bench presided ove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (PIL) No. 727 of 2022) has submitted that he would addressing the issue of maintainability in both the writ petitions, i.e., W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 and W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 since respondent no. 6 in W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 is respondent no. 7 in W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022. In view thereof, we started the hearing on the issue of maintainability on 1st June, 2022. For ready reference order dated 1st June, 2022 is quoted under as: We have perused the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 9729-9730 of 2022, which has been brought on record by filing I.A. No. 4525 of 2022 in W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 by the State of Jharkhand. The relevant passage from the aforesaid order containing direction given by the Hon ble Supreme Court is extracted and reproduced as under: - 10. The issue of maintainability should be dealt with by the High Court on the next date of listing when the proceedings are taken up. Based on the outcome of the objections to the maintainability of the proceedings, the High Court may thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 11. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms 12. This Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) For the direction upon the respondent no.4 also to investigate the financial crime committed by Hemant Soren which income has given to Ravi Kejriwal as he is connected to him since childhood and also having close connection with Ranjan Sahu, the so called owner of Hotlips Chain of hotels and restaurants and may also investigate as at which point of time and place Mr. Hemant Soren has committed illegality and earned crores of rupees and invested in the name of these persons. (d) For the direction upon the respondent no.5 to investigate the money trail of crime proceed lying with respondent no.8 to 13 and they have amassed the huge wealth and returning the money at the time of election to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha headed by Hemant Soren. 9. Facts of the case According to the writ petitioner, the money earned through illegal means has been invested in the companies, as per the details furnished in the writ petition under paragraph 2(A), the details of which is quoted as under:- (i).Anoop Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. (ii).Aurora Film Corpn Ltd. (iii).Aurora Studio Pvt. Ltd. (iv).Bhasha Construction Industrial Projects Private Ltd. (v).Bright Financial Mana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner on 21.04.2022 stating therein that prior to filing of the instant writ petition, one Late Diwan Indranil Sinha had sent representations, giving details of all the companies accompanying all the relevant documents in support of illegal earnings, before the Hon ble President of India, Hon ble Home Minister, Hon ble Governor of Jharkhand, the Director, CBI, The Director, Enforcement Directorate, The Central Vigilance Commissioner and The Director General (Investigation), Income Tax. Upon receipt of such representation by the CBI, they enquired the matter on their own level and communicated to him vide letter no. 376 dated 05.11.2014 stating therein that ...if so desire, approach the competent Court,. It has further been stated that incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand has certain persons who works for him and they are the investment agents and have been asked by respondent no. 6 and 7 to take care of the business like, mining, liquor and real estate. It has been alleged that business of mining is being looked into by a group of persons, who are connected with each other. The details of such persons have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravi Kejriwal. (o).Awanti Aggrawal, Amar Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Aggrawal: All relations of the Ravi Kejriwal, associated with him in construction business. (p).Vijay Prakash: A resident of Bokaro, has shown himself a resident of West Bengal for purposes of the investment of Ravi Kejriwal s money. (q).Prem Nath Mali:-A Resident of Bokaro but he has shown himself as resident of West Bengal. (r).Sandhu Banerjee: A resident of Dhanbad, a present resident at Salt Lake in Kolkata, West Bengal, does the business. (s).Ritish Nidhi Aggrawal:-Also relations of Ravi Kejriwal does the business from the money earned from Soren s family and invested in the company s. (t).Guruwe Tekriwal:-Relation of Ravi Kejriwal, is also associated with the business empire of soren s family. (u).Ansuri Goenka:-A resident of Bokaro, at present resident at Kolkata, does investment of the money earned illegally by Soren s family and siphoned through Ravi Kejriwal. (v).Radha Krishna Aggrawal Vivek Aggrawal:-Having a showroom in Dhanbad and collects the money soren s family everyday and sends it to Kolkata to some of the persons, whose names are mentioned in this applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Excise and holding the post of Managing Director, Beverages Corporation Ltd. It has further been alleged that the money trail is quite clear as the companies which are dealing here in Jharkhand has a monopoly over Liquor Trade and modus is quite simple because Mr. Hemant Soren and Mr. Basant Soren are getting major share of profit from these firms and these persons have amassed not less than hundreds of crores out of this. It has also been alleged that Abhisek Prasad @ Pintoo is considered as mastermind behind all the businesses of liquor, real estate or mining, carried out in Jharkhand. He has his own business which he is carrying on either through himself or by his henchman i.e., Abhisek Prasad @ Pintoo, owner of the company, viz., M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises, Ranchi; Dhavvadanga Mines having partnership with Tarun Mandal located in Pakur. It is further alleged that M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises has obtained coal transportation work from Amrapali and Magadh Project of CCL to Usha Martin Industries under the threat to the Vice-President of the company by Abhisek Prasad @ Pintoo. Further allegation has been made by stating that Mr. Hemant Soren has also managed to get an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. Public Interest Litigation filed on 27.04.2022, inter alia, seeking an inquiry against the Press Advisor of the Respondent No.7. Herein, the Respondent no.7 has been arraigned as the Respondent No.9 in the said PIL. Note:- The said PIL is yet to be numbered. It has been stated though masquerading as a Public Interest Litigation is actually acting as a front of political parties. It has further been stated that since the petitioner has not approached any authority with his purported grievances before approaching this Court and thereby, he is misusing the judicial process, as such on this ground alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The judgment rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chetan Kamble Ors. (Judgment dated 28.02.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.10425 of 2010 10764 of 2010), has been referred, wherein, it has been observed that if the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claim on merits. Therefore, the writ petition, since having been filed with e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e SHELL Companies. In the backdrop of these subsequent developments, it is not available for the respondent-State of Jharkhand to make any objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. 12. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.14, i.e., the Registrar of Companies, Jharkhand. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Registrar of Companies, respondent no. 14, giving the details of four companies which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand has been referred. However, the details of rest of the Companies, since they fall under the jurisdiction of Registrar of Companies, Kolkata (West Bengal), Patna and some of the Companies fall under the jurisdiction of Registrar of Companies, Delhi Haryana and one Company registered in Chhattisgarh and 2 Companies registered with Registrar of Companies Cuttack (Odisha), the details of such companies which fall beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court could not be furnished. 13. W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 The instant writ petition has been preferred pro bono publico invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged that the letter of intent has been issued by the Signature of District Mining Officer, Ranchi and the Chief Minister of the State, being the departmental head, has got the public property leased in his favour, which is contrary to the Code of Conduct framed by the Government of India, for Chief Ministers Ministers. He has misused his post and started business of stone crusher mines, which he cannot do as per the law. It has been submitted that the Chief Minister/Departmental Mines, Minister, by obtaining mining lease in his favour has indulged himself in corrupt practices by mis-utilizing the Constitutional posts. 15. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as also the respondent no.7 who is respondent no. 6 in WP (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, namely, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan. It has been stated that the issue as to whether there is any violation of Section 9-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and whether the respondent no.7 has suffered any disqualification by executing the mining lease is pending before the Election Commission of India in Reference Case No.3(G) of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2019. 7. That is stated that during the course of said investigation under the Prevention of Laundering Act, a serious implication of one Ms. Pooja Singhal, Secretary (Mines) state of Jharkhand is found. The said material pertains to allotment of lease in favuor of Respondent no. 7, which is subject matter of W.P. PIL No. 727 of 2022. The role of some of the companies mentioned in paragraph-A [Page 8 of W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021] has also emerged. These companies are spread over to the jurisdiction beyond the State of Jharkhand. 8. That is stated that the Enforcement Directorate is a party in all the writ petitions and is served with notice issued by this Hon ble Court. In response to the notice issued by this Hon ble Court and as substantial evidence showing strong prima facie case of commission of serious cognizable offences has emerged, the Enforcement Directorate feels duty bound and has placed the same before this Hon ble Court in a sealed cover. The Enforcement Directorate is also duty bound to bring these facts to the notice of this Court under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Considering the strong prima facie case emerging so far, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel has placed reliance the judgments rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409, State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402, Kunga Nima Lepcha and Ors. Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 513, P. Chidambaram, Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791 and M. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. S. Janaki and Anr., (2020) 16 SCC 728. In furtherance to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jhakhand, Mr. Mukul Rohatagi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 in W.P.(PIL) Nos.4290 of 2021 and respondent no. 7 in W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 has submitted that the instant writ petitions by way of Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable reason being that the petitioner did not disclose his credentials and further the writ petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available under Code of Criminal Procedure by instituting F.I.R before the concerned Police Station or before the Magistrate rather he directly rushed to this Court and as such the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een submitted that even accepting that there is lack of credentials, it is not available for the State of Jharkhand to raise the technical issue of maintainability of writ petition when siphoning of public money has surfaced as per the investigation of the Enforcement Directorate. The matter pertaining to MGNREGA for which W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019 is pending before this Court. It has also been submitted that since this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has got power even to take suo motu cognizance specially when there is apparent siphoning of huge public money causing injustice to people at large and jeopardizing of public interest at large. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the judgment rendered in Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) Vs. Union of India Ors [(2007) 4 SCC 380]; Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Ors [(2008) 9 SCC 54]; State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal Ors [(2010) 3 SCC 402] and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 28] by the Hon ble Apex Court. 19. Argument Advanced on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate: Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Enfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he wrong doers. If such act comes to the notice of High Court, it can duly exercise power under Article 226 in order to unearth the truth so that public money may not be left to be squandered. It has further been submitted, referring to the documents contained in the sealed cover which was opened by this Court, as would appear from the order dated 24.05.2022, that it is evident that the several incriminating materials have surfaced not only against the Mining Secretary of the State of Jharkhand and its connection with the Shell Companies who are facilitating the investment of the public money obtained through illegal means for the purpose of its investment and laundering but it indicates involvement of many high-ups. It has also been submitted, rebutting the contention raised on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the State about maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of credentials of the writ petitioner, that credentials of the writ petitioner as per the decision rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court is required to be seen only in order to see as to whether prima-facie case is available for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal has not been implicated by the district police in the criminal case instituted for embezzlement of MGNREGA fund, who, at the relevant point of time, was District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGA cum Deputy Commissioner, Khunti. 21. This Court had put a pin-pointed question to learned senior counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand that 16 FIRs were instituted in the year 2010 and even though the senior IAS officer who happened to be the District Programme Officer (MGNREGA)-cum-Deputy Commissioner during the relevant time in the district of Khunti, why FIR has not been instituted against her or she has not been made accused even after lapse of 12 years, no reply could be given. 22. However, this Court, in order to decide the issue of maintainability, deems it fit and proper to first refer certain judicial pronouncement of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the issue of entertaining the Public Interest Litigation. 23. There is no dispute about the fact that a person who comes to the Court for relief in public interest, must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective, as has been propounded by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal rights or liabilities are affected. There is a host of decisions explaining the expression PIL in its wider connotation in the present day context in modern society, a few of which we will refer to in the appropriate part of this judgment. At paragraph 62 of the said judgment it was pointed out that be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold. At paragraph 98 of the said judgment, it has further been observed that while this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly-developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold. It is also evident that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL 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. Further, it has been laid down that the Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant; the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and the information being not vague and indefinite. 24. In the light of proposition laid down by Hon ble Apex Court and argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is proceeding to examine the objection raised on behalf of respondent-State of Jharkhand as also on behalf of respondent no. 6 in W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021, who happens to be respondent no. 7 in W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022, who have raised following objections with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions: (I).Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redentials which is mandatory requirement as per Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The credential of the writ petitioner has been questioned taking the ground that the writ petitioner has not furnished the details, save and except the detail to the effect that he is citizen of India and tax-payer, which according to learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand is not sufficient for entertaining the writ petition pro bono publico, in view of provision as contained under Rule 4 and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and in view of the judgment rendered in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) in particular paragraph 181. It has further been alleged that the details about filing of writ petition in nature of Public Interest Litigation have not been disclosed while similar writ petition being W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 was already filed, which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- and appeal preferred before the Hon ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. No. 4886 of 2014 was dismissed. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch Body, and must also clearly specify the authority of that person to represent such Body in that litigation so as to make the decision therein binding on all individuals of such Body. 4-B.Every Public Interest Litigation will chronologically mention in detail all such other and earlier efforts with their result, which are within the petitioner s knowledge, and which have been made by the petitioner or others for obtaining the relief sought by the Public Interest Litigation. 5. To encourage only genuine and bona fide Public Interest Litigation and discourage Public Interest Litigation filed for extraneous considerations, the Bench hearing a Public Interest Litigation shall first verify the prima-facie credentials of the petitioner before entertaining any case as Public Interest Litigation. Thereafter, notice may be issued to the Advocate General or to any other authority to enable the Bench hearing the matter to come to a prima facie satisfaction regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition or information before entertaining the same as Public Interest Litigation. 6. xxx xxx xxx xxx 6-A.The above procedure may be relaxed by the concerned Bench, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Interest Litigation shall state in clear terms of the relief prayed for in paragraph-1 of the petition and grounds in paragraph-2 thereof. In paragraph-3, the petitioner shall given his/her full and complete details so as to reveal his/her interest, credentials and qualifications relevant for the Public Interest Litigation, along with a declaration that he/she has no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter of Public Interest Litigation. In addition, the petitioner shall set out all relevant facts along with available supporting data, reports etc. 4-A of Rules, 2010 is regarding a Public Interest Litigation is filed by a person on behalf of a Body of Individuals which is not a case here, thus, it is not being discussed. The provision under Rule 4-B of the Rules, 2010 suggests that Every Public Interest Litigation will chronologically mention in detail all such other and earlier efforts with their result, which are within the petitioner s knowledge, and which have been made by the petitioner or others for obtaining the relief sought by the Public Interest Litigation. Rule 5 speaks about encouraging only genuine and bona fide Public Interest Litigation and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Public Interest Litigation be thrown out by the High Court even if incriminating materials have surfaced. Reference in this regard may be made to Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 wherein it has been stated that only those matter shall be treated as Public Interest Litigation, which involves substantial public interest at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and for this the Bench hearing the matter shall ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, prima facie consideration for furnishing such detail, the genuineness of public harm or public injury as also issue of personal gain or oblique motive is required to be seen. 30. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that procedure ought not be allowed to be given preference over genuine Public Interest Litigation on ground of technicalities. But certainly that principle will be applicable if the Court finds that the Public Interest Litigation is filed for mischievous consideration. It is also not disputed that the responsibility of the Court is to decide controversies that have been brought before it irrespective of the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice. It is, thus, evident that the use of word Shall in Order 8 Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory. The use of word Shall is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature but having regard to the context in which it is used or having regard to the intention of the legislation, the same can be construed as directory. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules of procedure are the handmaid for justice. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice. Further, in the case of Chinnammal Ors Vs. P. Arumugham Anr. [(1990)1 SCC 513], it has been held at paragraph 16 as under: 16.This is also the principle underlying Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the duty of all the courts as observed by the Privy Council as aggregate of those tribunals to take care that no act of the court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the suit is a nullity and no amendment can cure it. If the latter is the case, prima facie, there ought to be an amendment because the general rule, subject no doubt to certain exceptions, is that the Court should always allow an amendment where any loss to the opposing party can be compensated for by costs. It is, thus, evident that Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure. The provisions contained in the Rules 6-A and 9 goes to show that it has been carved out as exception to the earlier part of the Rules, i.e., notwithstanding to the provisions contained in Rule, 3, 4, 4-A, 4-B. Thus, the provisions under Rule 3, 4, 4-A and 4-B etc. have to be treated to be directory as it cannot come in the way of exercise of power under Article 226 as per Rule 9. In the judgment rendered by Hon ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari Anr. [(1976) 1 SCC 719, wherein at paragraph 8 it has been held that procedure is not a tyrant but a servant. The relevant paragraph 8 of the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to the extent indicated, we overrule the decision in Bikram Dass case. Emphasis supplied The aforesaid judgment reflects that on the ground of procedural defect the litigation cannot be thrown out. It is not in dispute that Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 has been formulated in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 by way of procedural law for fling or entertaining Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, the issue fell for consideration before this Court is for deciding the issue of maintainability due to not observing strictly the provisions of Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, it has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court, procedural law will not come in the way of substantive justice. The substantive justice is required to be seen from the pleadings of the rival parties and if the Court of law prima facie finds that there is some substance in the materials produced before it then certainly rejection on such procedural law will lead to social injustice where the public interest at large is involved. The requirement as per the provision of Rule 4, 4-B and 5 of the J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idavit was filed by the petitioner but no rebuttal or reply has been filed by contesting respondents. 34. This Court, after considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and taking into consideration the fact that the issue which is the subject matter of writ petition since involve issue of siphoning of huge public money, having the public interest at large, therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper not to throw the writ petition on that ground. 35. This Court, on the basis of discussions made herein above, is of the considered view that merely because the some of the requirement as per Rule 4, 4-B and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 have not been followed, the instant writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable. 36. Accordingly, Objection Nos. I and II regarding maintainability of the writ petitions are answered against the respondent-State of Jharkhand and respondent no. 6 in W.P. (PIL) NO. 4290 of 2021, who happens to be respondent no. in W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022. 37. Objection No. III: The writ petitions have been filed with mala fide intention since father of the writ petitioner was the witness in a criminal ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eptable at all. The allegation cannot be said to be a farce. What ultimately would be the fate of the writ petition lies in the womb of morrow but how such petition could be thrown away at the threshold? 43. Accordingly, objection no. III is decided against the concerned respondents. 44. Objection No. (IV).The writ petitioner has directly rushed to this Court without exhausting the remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 45. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the writ petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing the instant writ petition without exhausting the alternative remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to put the police into motion by instituting the complain before the police under Section 154 and 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in K. R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Others [(1994) 6 SCC 620]; Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409; M. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. S. Janaki and Anr [(2020) 16 SCC 728]; Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Heman Yaswant Dhage and others [(2016) 6 SCC 277} ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the writ petition on the ground that alternative remedy was available for redressal of grievance. We have gone across the judgment passed in Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti (supra) and found therefrom that civil suit was filed by the petitioner which was pending before the Commissioner, as such the Hon ble Apex Court taking into consideration the fact that the appellant-petitioner has availed the statutory remedy, dismissed the SLP preferred by the petitioner holding the same to be not maintainable. However, in the case in hand the fact is otherwise, since there is allegation of siphoning of huge public money jeopardizing the public interest and siphoning the national wealth as such the judgment rendered in Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. So far the judgment rendered in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Heman Yaswant Dhage and others [(2016) 6 SCC 277} is concerned, law is well settled that in case of non- registration of FIR or improper investigation by the police remedy in the matter is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure by approaching before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and the Magi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
