Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2993 (ALL)

JAGDISH NARAYAN SHUKLA v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-08-31

DILIP B.BHOSALE, RAJAN ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr. Jagdish Narayan Shukla, petitioner-in-person and learned Advocate General with Smt. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents. 2. This petition, in the nature of public interest, filed by an Editor of Nishpaksh Pratidin Daily Newspaper, seeks the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to post Mr. Singhal to some other post and to appoint an able person with reputation and integrity for the post of Chief Secretary of the State. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to take into consideration the companies as mentioned as aforesaid which are running by the relatives of the present Chief Secretary and to investigate in detail and if found to be bogus and inoperative, to proceed prosecution against them as per law.” 3. From bare perusal of the prayers, it is clear that the petitioner seeks reliefs against Mr. Singhal, Chief Secretary of the State Government, making serious allegations against him, without adding him as a party-respondent in the writ petition. 4. We have heard the petitioner-in-person. He submitted that a CBI enquiry, ordered by Central Vigilance Commission (for short “CVC”) is pending against Mr. Singhal and in view thereof, the State Government ought not to have appointed him as the Chief Secretary. He further submitted that the State Government should transfer him to some other post and appoint an able person with reputation and integrity as Chief Secretary of the State. Insofar as the second prayer is concerned, he did not make any submission. 5. We have perused the writ petition. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition and ground C thereof, the petitioner has made the following averments: “12. That when Mr. Singhal was working as Joint Secretary with respondent No. 3-Government of India in the Ministry of Fertilizer in the year 2010 a Chief Vigilance Commission’s inquiry was ordered against him for his controversial orders to import fertilizers. Later the probe was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation which is still in existence and the inquiry is pending and it is due to that reason that he was returned back to this home cadre prematurely. Later the probe was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation which is still in existence and the inquiry is pending and it is due to that reason that he was returned back to this home cadre prematurely. The matter has been reported in the Times of India on 17th August, 2016, the true copy of the same is being annexed herewith as Annexure 1 to this petition.” C. Because there are various grave charges of irregularities and corrupt practices against Mr. Deepak Singhal in discharge of his official duties as is evident from various news paper reporting in which several inquiries by C.B.I. or C.V.C. are going on. As such, there are probabilities to a great extent for him to manipulate and tamper with the evidences sitting on key posts and, hence, the petitioner has grave apprehension in the present case also.” 6. Perusal of paragraph 12 shows that the allegations are based on newspaper reports. The petitioner has also placed on record a newspaper cutting of his own newspaper in support of the allegations apart from other newspaper reports. 7. The petitioner, in support, has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Center for Public Interest Litigation and another v. Union of India and another, Writ Petition (Civil) 387 of 2005, decided on 6.10.2005. He invited our attention to the following paragraphs of the said judgment: “We do not think it necessary to delve into the question of maintainability of the writ petition as the same, as noted at the threshold appears to be an offshoot of the earlier petition. A time has come when the postings of officers holding sensitive posts should be done in transparent manner giving no scope for any grievance. It is true that grievances can be made or allegations can be levelled for ulterior motive or with the intention of damaging the reputation of an officer who is likely to be appointed in a sensitive post, very often at the behest of persons angling for the post. In the peculiar background facts it was really desirable for the State Government to steer clear of controversy and not to post respondent No. 3 as the Chief Secretary. By doing it, it has unnecessarily created further complications and invited criticism. In the peculiar background facts it was really desirable for the State Government to steer clear of controversy and not to post respondent No. 3 as the Chief Secretary. By doing it, it has unnecessarily created further complications and invited criticism. We, therefore, direct the State Government to transfer the respondent No. 3 to some other post in the cadre/grade to which she belonged. The question of her suitability to be included in the cadre/grade, shall be examined in the writ petition itself. For the present, we do not express any opinion on that issue. The necessary steps for effectuating our order shall be taken within seven days. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations as the matter is pending before the High Court and Justice Thomas Commission.” 8. Advocate General, on the other hand, on instructions, submitted that no enquiry of whatsoever nature is pending against Mr. Singhal with the CBI either independently or at the instance of CVC. In other words, he submitted that the CBI is not investigating any allegation or crime or conducting any enquiry against Mr. Singhal either independently or at the instance of CVC. He also placed on record a copy of the letter issued by CVC dated 21.1.2015 stating that there is nothing adverse on records of the Commission in respect of Shri Deepak Singhal, IAS (UP:82). Further the Advocate General placed on record a list of about 55 petitions/PILs filed by the petitioner in person to contend that he is habitual litigant, known for making absolutely baseless, reckless and scandalous allegations against everybody, like Mr. Singhal. He also invited our attention to one of the orders passed by a Division Bench on 19.4.2011 in Misc. Bench No. 4188 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in person wherein it is observed that “the petitioner, who appears in person, does not even have the Courtesy and decency to address the Court properly or maintain its decorum.” Our experience is not different. Further observations made by the Division Bench in the said case are also worthy and noticeable, which reads thus: “The petitioner, who appears in person, does not even have the Courtesy and decency to address the Court properly or maintain its decorum. Further observations made by the Division Bench in the said case are also worthy and noticeable, which reads thus: “The petitioner, who appears in person, does not even have the Courtesy and decency to address the Court properly or maintain its decorum. The Court queried of him whether he has filed any complaint under the provisions of Rule 4(6) of the U.P. Employment Guarantee Grievance Redressal Mechanism Rules, 2009, which provides that any citizen of India including the petitioner herein or any registered non-Government institution may make complaints, if there is any misappropriation of funds through fake Muster Roll or in other words if the funds are misappropriated, can file complaint. The Court could have appreciated, if the petitioner had filed complaint and no action has been taken by the respondent authorities, then this Court could have intervened to protect the large public interest and public revenue. The Court can even take cognizance of the matter without there being a complaint, if the matter is of such momentus importance that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is necessary. We find that in the instant case the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties as he has not filed any complaint under the provisions of existing Rules. We make it clear that if the petitioner herein approaches the Court in any other matter and does not behave in the Court, as an individual should, it will be open to the Court to consider debarring him from appearing in person. In the light of that, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in extraordinary writ jurisdiction.” 9. In another writ petition bearing Misc. Bench No. 1278 of 2016 filed by the petitioner in person, the Division Bench, while dismissing the said writ petition vide order dated 22.1.2016 observed that “We decline to entertain the petition since we are not satisfied in regard to the bona fides and credentials of the petitioner.” 10. One more Division Bench made severe observation against the petitioner in person in Writ Petition No. 552 (M/B) of 2015, while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 23.2.2015. It is not out of place to mention that the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing Misc. One more Division Bench made severe observation against the petitioner in person in Writ Petition No. 552 (M/B) of 2015, while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 23.2.2015. It is not out of place to mention that the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing Misc. Bench No. 6615 of 2014 seeking similar relief against an Engineer-in-Chief of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority relying upon the same decision as aforesaid and the said writ petition was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with the observation that the relief claimed essentially related to service matters in respect of which a Public Interest Litigation does not lie and also that the decision relied upon, as aforesaid, was distinguishable on facts, as in the said case a charge-sheet had been filed against the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. before the Special C.B.I. Court. 11. The Advocate General also placed several such orders on record. He then invited our attention to one more order dated 24.8.2016 passed in Misc. Bench No. 19827 of 2016 filed by one Tripuresh Tripathi against Sri Deepak Singhal. That writ petition also came to be dismissed. In that petition, the petitioner Tripathi had challenge the appointment of Mr. Singhal contending that it was not in accordance with Rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Services Cadre Rules, 1954. It would be appropriate to reproduce the following observations made in the order dated 24.8.2016, which read thus: “Sri Onkar Pandey holding brief of petitioner’s counsel has prayed for an adjournment. We are not inclined to adjourn such an issue allegedly involving public interest in a service matter and we find that the petition has been filed in a cavalier fashion trying to draw similes from rules which are not relevant. Even otherwise there is no substance in the allegation with regard to the rules as the Chief Secretary has to be appointed by the State Government. The petition appears to have been filed only with a view to keep something pending without any substance in it and therefore the request of adjournment is neither bona fide nor are we of the opinion that it should be adjourned. This attitude of getting such petitions filed and keep them pending consumes the valuable time of the Court and, therefore, the request of adjournment is declined.” 12. This attitude of getting such petitions filed and keep them pending consumes the valuable time of the Court and, therefore, the request of adjournment is declined.” 12. In this backdrop, we perused the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in person. In our opinion, the observations made in the said judgment, in particular, the paragraph quoted above, are of no avail to the petitioner. It is clear from perusal of the said judgment that CBI had filed charge-sheet against the then Chief Secretary of the State after obtaining sanction from the Central Government. 13. At this stage, we would also like to reproduce the following observations made by this Court in Misc. Bench No. 8216 of 2016, Hindu Personal Law Board, through Ashok Pande v. Union of India, through Cabinet Secretary, Government of India and others, decided on 19.4.2016: “It has become necessary for the Court to issue this direction in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that valuable time of the Court is not wasted in thoroughly frivolous cases which have no bearing on matters of public interest. Habitual litigants are increasingly flooding the Courts with frivolous petitions. PILs are filed to cover almost every topic under the sun. Many of them are exercises for garnering publicity. Some are intended to stall public projects, often at the behest of a competitor. This tends to destroy the sanctity of PILs as a powerful instrument of securing socio-economic justice to the marginalised and underprivileged. The time of the Court is exhausted in dealing with frivolous cases with no genuine cause of public concern. This pernicious tendency has to be firmly stopped by providing orders for anticipatory costs. This is a means of securing an eventual award of costs in the case of a habitual litigant who, as here, has a track record of misconceived filings. Unless this is done, the Court would become a helpless spectator to the loss of public time and resources in dealing with motivated litigation. When lakhs of cases await judicial decision - including those of undertrials and convicts languishing in jail for years - the Court cannot allow the institution of administering justice to become a hapless victim of frivolous filings. Parliament, or the State legislature, may have to step in to legislate on the malady of vexatious litigation. That is a legislative function. When lakhs of cases await judicial decision - including those of undertrials and convicts languishing in jail for years - the Court cannot allow the institution of administering justice to become a hapless victim of frivolous filings. Parliament, or the State legislature, may have to step in to legislate on the malady of vexatious litigation. That is a legislative function. In the meantime, realistic costs must be deployed if the process of the Court is to be protected against litigious exploitation.” 14. The petitioner, in the present case, has so far, we are informed, filed more than fifty PILs in this Court. Yesterday also, we dismissed one of the PILs filed by him. While making submissions and responding to our queries, we find him non-cooperative, adamant and contentious. 15. In view of above, and having considered that the petitioner has not made Mr. Singhal as a party to the petition and has made serious and baseless allegations against him, we dismiss this writ petition with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-, which shall be payable to the U.P. State Legal Services Authority.