Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1309 (JHR)

Aftab Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2013-12-02

D.N.PATEL, P.P.BHATT

body2013
ORDER Per D.N. Patel, J.- The present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for the following prayers: "I. For a direction upon the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 to investigate and register an FIR against the respondent Nos. 10 to 15 as the resolvent Nos. 10 to 15 have earned huge amount and amassed disproportionate assets to the known sources of income whenever the respondent No. 10 was working as a P.A. of the then Coal Minister and Chief Minister of Jharkhand namely Shibu Soren by misusing the official position. II. For a direction upon the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 to make investigation in length as no one can escape who earned huge amount in the serving period as a P.A. to their known sources of income and submit the status report of investigation before this Hon'ble Court so that the efficient investigation can be done against those persons who are holding a such post in the State of Jharkhand." 2. Counsel for the petitioner, Shri J.K. Dey, submitted that respondent Nos. 10 to 15 have amassed disproportionate assets. These assets have been earned by respondent Nos. 10 to 15 mainly because of the reason that respondent No. 10 was working as P.A. to the then Coal Minister and the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand by misusing his official position and this wealth has been accumulated illegally at the hands of respondent Nos. 10 to 15. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to point out the credentials of the petitioner and not a single word has been argued; who is the petitioner, how he is getting his livelihood and what are his activities. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure-1 to the memo of this writ petition. When we asked a question that what is Annexure-1, he is unable to point out who is the author of Annexure-1. No information has been supplied by the petitioner about the author of Annexure-1. When we raised a question as to how Annexure-1 has come in the custody of the petitioner, he is unable to point out any source of the custody of Annexure1. Practically, counsel for the petitioner has not argued out any of the points. except the allegation that respondent Nos. When we raised a question as to how Annexure-1 has come in the custody of the petitioner, he is unable to point out any source of the custody of Annexure1. Practically, counsel for the petitioner has not argued out any of the points. except the allegation that respondent Nos. 10 to 15 have a lot of property illegally collected by misusing the position of respondent No. 10 at the relevant time and which is the year, in which the property is accumulated i.e. also not clear to the lawyer. In the petition also, there is no averment about the source of getting Annexure-1 and the similar is the position with Annexure-2. In fact, no head and tail could be matched by the counsel for the petitioner. Thus practically, nothing is argued out by the counsel for the petitioner except, wasting of time of this Court for several minutes. 5. Counsel appearing for .the Income Tax Department. Shri Deepak Raushan has pointed out that Assessment Orders against respondent Nos. 10 to 15 for different Assessment years have been passed and they have also preferred appeal under the Income Tax Act before the CIT (appeals) and these appeals are pending before the CIT (appeals). 6. It is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 12 that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. In fact, this is absolutely a private interest litigation and when respondent No. 12 applied for getting the paper (Annexure-1) from the Income Tax Department, the reply is that this type of information cannot be given. This reply has been given by the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigal1on), Ranchi vide his letter dated 25/26th September, 2012. This letter is annexed with the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 12 and therefore, he has raised a preliminary objection that this is absolutely a private interest litigation or a blackmailing type of litigation and this writ petition may not be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. 7. Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all and this litigation has been filed absolutely as a Private Interest Litigation and to settle the private scores. 7. Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all and this litigation has been filed absolutely as a Private Interest Litigation and to settle the private scores. Previously, also a writ petition being W.P. (PIL) No. 2514/2011 was instituted levelling allegations against a person with whom respondent No. 10 was working as P.A. and the said petition was dismissed by this Court with cost vide order dated 19th October, 2013. One more petition being W.P. (PIL) No. 4218/2013 was instituted which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22nd November, 2013 with cost. These different type of petitions are being instituted with the similar type of allegations and the petitioners are unable to point out anything accurately in these matters and hence, this petition may not be entertained by this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this petition mainly for the following facts and reasons :- (i) No credentials of the present petitioner have been argued out by the counsel appearing for the petitioner nor anything has been mentioned in the petition about the credentials of the present petitioner. When we raised question to the petitioner, he is unable to point out the source of income of the petitioner nor he is able to point out any social activities indulged by the petitioner. (ii) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure-1 but when we raised question that who is author of Annexure-1, he is unable to point out anything nor he can point out from which source Annexure-1 is obtained by the petitioner. In fact, Annexure 1 is narrated as Chapter No.7. We do not know what are the earlier chapters and what are subsequent chapter and whether this note is prepared by the petitioner or who is the author of Annexure-1, which is Chapter 7 of some document. No head and tail is matched by the counsel for the petitioner in this matter, except a bare assertion that huge wealth is collected by respondent Nos. 10 to 15. No other sentence has been spoken by the counsel for the petitioner. We are unable to understand this allegation. Similar is the position with Annexure-2 which starts from page No. 35 onwards of this petition. 9. 10 to 15. No other sentence has been spoken by the counsel for the petitioner. We are unable to understand this allegation. Similar is the position with Annexure-2 which starts from page No. 35 onwards of this petition. 9. It appears that this petition has been filed without doing any home work by the petitioner and he has wasted valuable time of this Court. Whenever any Public Interest Litigation is preferred, such petitioner must accurately point out as many details as they can. If the lawyer is appearing for petitioner, the case must be presented with more accuracy. It is easy to put allegation, but, it should be kept in mind by such type of petitioners that in support of their contentions they must argue out at least one or two points. Counsel has taken more time in keeping silence than in arguments. We have raised the query about the credentials of the petitioner, about the author of Annexures- 1 and 2 and about the fact that how Annexures-1 and 2 have been obtained by the petitioner, but, except silence, nothing has been argued out. For these type of writ petitions, we are not inclined to pass any order as prayed for in the memo of the petition. We failed to understand as to why this petitioner is not arguing in this case. 10. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition with cost of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only), which will be deposited by the petitioner before the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi within a period of six weeks from today. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Nyaya Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi. The Registry is also directed to enlist this matter on 27th January, 2014 just for getting information whether the petitioner has deposited the said amount or not. Petition dismissed.