Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 727 (CAL)

Satya Sandhi v. State of West Bengal

2014-08-07

DEBANGSU BASAK

body2014
JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The writ petitioners seek a writ of quo warranto against the respondent no.2. The writ petitioners claim that since a criminal investigation by his subordinate was allegedly misdirected by such subordinate officers, the respondent no.2 rendered himself unfit to hold his office and therefore writ of quo warranto should be issued to remove him from his office. 2. The writ petitioners submit that, there are subsisting disputes with regard to the persons entitled to represent the petitioner no.1. The various proceedings with regard to the composition of the writ petitioner no.1 and its representations were taken and some of them are still pending. In particular, the writ petitioners refer to a criminal investigation, which is pending. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the police officer undertaking such police investigation did not conduct the inquiry properly. The report filed by such police officer was set aside on challenge at the behest of the writ petitioners. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, since a police officer subordinate to respondent no.2 had misconducted and misdirected a police investigation the respondent no.2 should lay down office as he had rendered himself unfit to continue in the office. The writ petitioners suspect that, the investigating officer subordinate to the respondent no.2 in convenience with the respondent no.2 had misdirected and mis-conducted the police investigation. The petitioner relies on Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866. The writ petitioners submit that, under Section 9 of the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 the police force is under the exclusive direction and control of the respondent no.2. The writ petitioners rely on (2009)7 Supreme Court Cases (N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose & Ors.) and (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Centre For PIL v. Union of India) on the point that, institutional integrity is far above the personal integrity. Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, is referred to and submits that judicial notice of every law prevailing has to be taken notice by the Court in dealing with the facts scenario brought before it. 4. On behalf of the respondent no.1 it is submitted that, disputes between two private citizens are sought to be converted into and agitated by way of writ of quo warranto. The writ petition is not maintainable. 4. On behalf of the respondent no.1 it is submitted that, disputes between two private citizens are sought to be converted into and agitated by way of writ of quo warranto. The writ petition is not maintainable. There is no challenge by the writ petitioners that the respondent no.2 was unfit to be appointed to the office. What is the claimed by the writ petitioners is that, due to an alleged misconduct in respect of a criminal investigation undertaken by an officer subordinate to the respondent no. 2, respondent no.2 should be declared unfit to hold the office. A writ of quo warranto should not be issued in such circumstances. Reliance in this regard is placed on A.I.R. 1965 at page 491 (The University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao & Anr.). 5. On facts he submits the so-called mis-investigation by the subordinate officer was challenged by the writ petitioners in the criminal proceedings in which such report was filed. The report was set aside. The Court in seisin of such criminal proceedings directed a fresh investigation which is going on in terms of the Courts order. There is no allegation that the fresh investigation has also been misdirected. It is also pointed out on behalf of the respondent no.1 that, the entire allegation against the respondent no.2 is at best a surmise and conjecture and not on the basis of any fact or material on records. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record. 7. There are subsisting disputes as to the composition of the writ petitioner no.1 and the person entitled to represent it. This fight between such personnel received the attention of the Court at diverse levels on various proceedings initiated before it. One of such proceedings is a criminal proceeding which required investigation into a particular allegation. The allegations in the writ petition are that the investigating officer undertaking the investigation has misdirected the investigation and had filed a frivolous report. The writ petitioners claim that, since the respondent no.2 is repository of all powers under the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 and that, all the subordinate police officers of the Calcutta Police are in his control, the respondent no.2 is responsible for the act of the investigating officer. The writ petitioners claim that, since the respondent no.2 is repository of all powers under the Calcutta Police Act, 1866 and that, all the subordinate police officers of the Calcutta Police are in his control, the respondent no.2 is responsible for the act of the investigating officer. The respondent no.2 has rendered himself unfit to continue in his office by reason of the misconduct of the investigation into an alleged crime done by a subordinate officer of the respondent no.2. 8. The representation before the Chief Justice of Madras High Court for appointment of a person to the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was in question in N. Kannadasan (supra). In such context at paragraph 95 which the petitioner relies upon, the Supreme Court was of the view as follows: "95. We may notice that recently a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.) was a member in Shanti Bhushan v. Union of India referring to S.P. Gupta, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. and other decisions, noticed: (SCC P.671, para 9). "9. Pathak, J. (as the Honble Judge then was) had expressed similar opinion in S.P. Gupta case by observing that in following the procedure of Article 217(1) while appointing an Additional Judge as a Permanent Judge there would be reduced emphasis with which the consideration would be exercised though the process involves the consideration of all the concomitant elements and factors which entered into the process of consultation at the time of appointment earlier as an Additional Judge. The position was succinctly stated by observing that there is a presumption that a person found suitable for appointment as an Additional Judge continues to be suitable for appointment as a Permanent Judge, except when circumstances or events arise which bear adversely on the mental and physical capacity, character and integrity or other matters rendering it unwise to appoint him as a Permanent Judge. There must be relevant and pertinent material to sufficiently convince a reasonable mind that the person is no longer suitable to fill the high office of a Judge and has forfeited his right to be considered for appointment". 9. In Centre for PIL (supra) the legality of the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner was questioned. It was held that, the Government was not accountable to the Court in respect of the policy decisions. 9. In Centre for PIL (supra) the legality of the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner was questioned. It was held that, the Government was not accountable to the Court in respect of the policy decisions. However, they were accountable for the legality of such decision. Paragraph 32 of such report relied upon which is as follows:- "32. On analysis of the 2003 Act, the following are the salient features. The CVC is given a statutory status. It stands established as an institution. The CVC stands established to enquire offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by certain categories of public servants enumerated above. Under Section 3(3)(a) the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners are to be appointed from amongst persons who have been or are in all-India services or in any civil service of the Union or who are in a civil post under the Union having knowledge and experience in the matters relating to vigilance, policy-making and administration including police administration". 10. The University of Mysore (supra) was relied upon on behalf of the State. Paragraph 7 of such report lays down as follows: "(7) As Halsbury has observed: An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty, to enquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined." Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which may have a right. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases, persons not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a result of the connivance of the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quo warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not." 11. The University of Mysore (supra) lays down that, before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto he must satisfy the Court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority. When such a question is raised, it would necessarily lead to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. 12. The question raised in the writ petition is not that the appointment of the respondent no.2 was not made in accordance with law. In the judgment of N. Kannadasan (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the suitability of confirmation of an additional Judge to be a permanent Judge. The facts of the case at hand is far removed from N. Kannadasan (supra) as well as The Centre For PIL (supra). The disputes between two private persons are sought to be agitated by way of a writ of quo warranto directed against the respondent no.2. I find this attempt to be in gross abuse of process of Court. 13. The facts of the case at hand is far removed from N. Kannadasan (supra) as well as The Centre For PIL (supra). The disputes between two private persons are sought to be agitated by way of a writ of quo warranto directed against the respondent no.2. I find this attempt to be in gross abuse of process of Court. 13. The writ petitioners evidently have deep pockets to indulge in numerous litigating. Asking the writ petitioners to indulge into charitable cause in respect of the present misadventure would be in the fitness of things. 14. In such circumstances, I dismiss the writ petition with costs assessed at Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by the writ petitioners to the District Legal Aid Services, Bankura for them to utilise such funds for the juveniles at the district. 15. WP No.650 of 2014 is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Stay of operation of the order is prayed for and the same is refused. Petition dismissed.