1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER
:
1. D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.9730/2011 Mahavir Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4 D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.3185/2011 Mahavir Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3 D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.3054/2011 Mahavir Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 5 D.B.CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.551/2012 Mahavir Jain Vs. G.S.SANDHU & ORS. DATE OF ORDER
:::
20. h January 2015 HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR REPORTABLE Mr.S.P.Sharma for the petitioner Mr.Sandeep Shah ) Mr.S.S.Ladrecha,AAG ) Mr.Ravindra Singh ) Mr.Kuldeep Mathur ) Ms.Kausar Parveen ) for the respondents BY THE COURT: (Per Hon’ Mr.Sunil Ambwani, Actg.CJ.) 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Writ Petition No.9730/2011 is filed in public interest with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed by the petitioner before your Lordship that; this writ petition filed by the petitioner, may kindly be allowed with cost and; (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof, the respondent Department of Local Bodies, Jaipur may kindly be directed to take immediate suitable action including disciplinary action, against respondent no.7 and 8, for various irregularities committed by them, in discharge of their duties in Municipality Barmer and by a suitable order, they kindly be immediately transferred or 2 removed from Municipal Council Barmer and be posted at any other place, so that, no more injury is caused to Municipality Barmer and enquiries being undertaken in regards to various irregularities in the matter of regularisation of land and embezzlement of Municipal Funds, is not hampered or influenced by respondent no.7 and 8. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the State of Rajasthan, may kindly be directed to carry out special audit, by Local Fund Audit or by any other suitable agency, to enquire all the cases of regularisation in regards to land of Kacchi Basti area and cases of disposal of other lands of Municipality Barmer, from year 2000 till date and report of the enquiry be placed before this Hon’ble High Court, for further action, if found needfull. (iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof a suitable enquiry/investigation in the matter may kindly be ordered by Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) or by Anti Corruption Bureau and it may kindly be directed to seize off entire record of Municipality Barmer, in regard to various irregularities committed by the respondent no.7 and 8 and to investigate role of respondent no.9, Public Representatives Shri Mewa Ram Jain, MLA, Barmer, for his role in disposal of Municipal Land, as stated in this writ petition. (iv) or if deemed fit in the facts and circumstances; by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof, suitable action may kindly be ordered for taking disciplinary/ criminal action against all the Municipal Chairman, Barmer and other government officials/employees, found involved in illegal regularization/grant of lease deeds in respect of land of Municipality Barmer from year 2000 till date. (v) Any other order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in the matter.”. 3. The petitioner has identified himself in paragraph 3(i) of the writ petition as a citizen of India and a permanent resident of District Barmer. He also produced copy of PAN Card for proof of his identity. He has stated in paragraph 3(2) to (6) as follows:- “(2) The in this petition, the petitioner does not have any personal interest in the matter. The petition is being filed in the interest of public at large to raise voice, in regards to large scale 3 irregularities which has been committed by the respondent no.7 and 8 and who have been continuously causing loss to the respondent Municipality Barmer and to Government, for last more then 15 years, by sitting at one place in Municipality Barmer, and they have been involved in various cases of corruption, but because of political support of local MLA Shri Mewa Ram Jain (former Municipal Chairman) and other local leaders, the Government is not able to take any action against them, till date and despite, there being repeated recommendation for disciplinary action and to lodge FIR, no disciplinary action is initiated against respondent no.7 and 8, which is a matter of serious concern. (3) That, the entire litigation cost, including the advocate’s fee and other charges is being borne by the petitioner, from his personal income. The petitioner is a Tax Payer and holds Permanent Account Number AEXPJ-9924J.
(4) That, a thorough research has been conducted on the subject matter, raised in this public interest litigation (all the relevant material documents, in respect of such research shall be annexed with this writ petition). (5) That, to the best of petitioner’s knowledge and research, the issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed earlier by him, seeking action against private respondents. However, the attention of the higher authorities of the government was invited for taking appropriate action, by serving legal notice, but these legal notices are not even responded. (6) The Petitioner has understood that in the course of hearing of this petition, the Court may require any security to be furnished towards costs or any other charges and the petitioner shall comply with such requirements.”. 4. A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition in public interest. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 that after the comprehensive directions issued in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court to check the misuse of Public Interest Litigation, in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh: AIR2010SC2550 various High Courts have framed strict rules for ascertaining the credentials and the object of filing the writ petitions in public interest. The Supreme Court has expressly 4 warned that the High Courts should not allow any person to vent his grievances in personal matters and further that strict enquiry should be made to find out whether any public interest is served in the matter. The Court should encourage genuine and bona fide PIL, and discourage PIL for extraneous considerations and win oblique motive. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are quoted as below:-
“194. We must abundantly make it clear that we are not discouraging the public interest litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the courts for improving ecology and environment, and directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. etc. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the courts to encourage genuine bona fide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in consonance with the Constitution and the Laws.
195. The Public Interest Litigation, which has been in existence in our country for more than four decades, has a glorious record. This Court and the High Courts by their judicial creativity and craftsmanship have passed a number of directions in the larger public interest in consonance with the inherent spirits of the Constitution. The conditions of marginalized and vulnerable section of society have significantly improved on account of courts directions in the P.I.L.
196. In our considered view, now it has become imperative to streamline the P.I.L.
197. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments.
198. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:- (1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with 5 oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”. 5. In pursuance of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), the High Court of Rajasthan has amended its rules insisting upon the identification and credentials of the persons before the cause is examined. The relevant Rules 385-E, 385-G and 385-H in Chapter XXIIA of the Rajasthan High Court Rules are quoted below:- “385-E.- Filing of PIL Petition.- A petition, drawn as nearly as possible in conformity with the Format appended to these, rules could be filed in the High Court espousing a public cause in the nature of regular public interest petition by an individual or by individuals having social public standing/professional status/public spirited antecedents. Such petition could also be filed by or with any social action group or a non-governmental organization:
6. Provided that in every petition filed in public interest, the particulars of the petitioner, or of the petitioners when there be more than one petitioner, shall be distinctly stated; and the petition shall carry photograph as well as address proof of every individual petitioner and so also of the deponent filing the affidavit in support of the petition: Provided further that in every petition filed by or with any social action group or non-governmental organisation, a specific resolution of such group or organisation to file such petition while authorising particular person or persons to prosecute the matter shall also be annexed to the petition. 385-G. Prima facie proof and affidavits.- A petition filed in public interest shall, as far as practicable, be supported by prima facie proof, and an affidavit, on each substantive averment/allegation. 385-H. Declaration necessary.- (1) A petition filed in public interest shall contain a declaration of the petitioner/petitioners that a thorough research has been conducted in the matter raised through the public interest litigation; and all the relevant material in respect of such research shall be annexed with the petition. (2) A petition filed in public interest shall further contain a declaration of the petitioner/petitioners that to the best of his/their knowledge and research, the issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed earlier by any person; and in case, such an issue was dealt with or a similar or identical petition was filed earlier, its status or the result.”. 6. In the present case, it is stated on behalf of respondent no.9 that petitioner Shri Mahavir Jain is the owner and publisher of newspaper ‘Maru Lahar’. A number of criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner for blackmailing and extortion. The details of the criminal cases are reproduced below:- 7 S.N Cases Nos. Date & Offence Challan/FR o. 1 211 Dated 10.10.1990 – offence under Challan No.71 / Sections 388, 420 IPC & 17, 18 NDPS2506.1991 for Act, Police Station, Kotwali Barmer the offence under Sections 388, 420, 120B IPC and Sections 17, 18 NDPS Act. 2 273 Dated 12.10.1994 – offence under Challan No.208/ Sections 451, 323, 341 IPC, Police 29.12.1994 for Station, Kotwali Barmer the offence under Sections 147, 452, 323 IPC3179 dated 15.07.1996 for the offence Challan No.145 under Sections 420, 384 IPC Police dated Station, Kotwali Barmer 30.08.1996 for the offence under Sections 420, 284 IPC4179 dated 07.05.2011 for the offence FR AV (False) under Section 384/34 IPC Police No.200 dated Station, Kotwali Barmer 29.11.2011 5 180 dated 07.05.2011 for the offence FR AV (False) under Section 384/34 IPC Police No.154 dated Station, Kotwali Barmer 24.09.2011 6 182 dated 09.5.2011 for the offence Investigation under Sections 327, 384, 385/34 IPC pending Police Station, Kotwali Barmer 7 183 dated 09.05.2011 for the offence FR AV (False) under Section 384/34 IPC Police No.150 dated Station, Kotwali Barmer 08.09.2011. 8 255 dated 06.06.2012 for the offence Investigation under Sections 384, 385, 500 IPC pending Police Station, Kotwali Barmer 7. It is submitted that proceedings were also drawn against the petitioner vide order dated 27.03.1996 under the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 on the allegations of extortion. The order has, subsequently, been set aside in appeal vide order dated 30.12.1997 by the Addl.District Magistrate, Barmer on the ground that the person who has made the complaint against him could not be identified. The complainant and the appellant had been litigating each other and that there was no evidence to 8 show that the appellant was involved in the allegations under Section 2(b) of the Act at least three times. The licence of the newspaper of the petitioner was cancelled on 15.06.1994 on the allegation of blackmailing. The order was, however, set aside.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed repeated writ petitions mainly concerning the affairs of Municipality of District Barmer in the State of Rajasthan to settle the scores with Mr.Mewa Ram Jain, Former Municipal Chairman and now Member of Legislative Assembly, Barmer since the year 2009.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that all the criminal actions against the petitioner were registered on the ground that the petitioner had been publishing misdeeds of various public functionaries including Municipal Council, Barmer. He has been persecuted for publishing the issues relating to the public causes and in taking them to the court. It is stated that out of 8 cases, in 4 cases, final reports have been submitted.
10. We have considered the defence to the objection raised by the respondent No.9 in filing the writ petition in public interest and find that a large number of cases were registered against the petitioner by different persons for blackmailing and extortion. Out of 8 cases, final reports have been submitted in 4 cases. The record of the petitioner engaged in publishing a local newspaper on the allegations of extortion by various persons is too long to be ignored. Although the petitioner has been acquitted in appeal under the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 and the cancellation of licence of the newspaper was set aside, the action taken against him demonstrates a long history of enmity and litigation between the petitioner and the respondent No.9 who was the Municipal Chairman of Municipal Board and now Member 9 of Legislative Assembly, Barmer.
11. A writ petition in public interest may be entertained by the High Court if it has been brought in a bona fide manner by a person who has genuine concern to espouse a public cause. There are six petitions in public interest filed by the petitioner. Out of which, in four matters, the needle of all the allegations points towards Municipality, Barmer and particularly Mr.Mewa Ram Jain, former Municipal Chairman (now Member of Legislative Assembly) Barmer, who is admittedly in litigation with the petitioner in a large number of cases. We also find that out of 8 cases registered on the allegation of extortion, four cases are still pending and thus it cannot be said that petitioner is a bona fide journalist who is bringing public causes to the notice of general public. The proceedings of the High Court should not be allowed to be used for ventilating personal grudge and to settle personal scores. Some complaints against the employees of Municipality, Barmer may have resulted into disciplinary proceedings and for which directions were issued to take further steps by the Municiaplity and the State Government. The pendency of these disciplinary proceedings against the employees of Municipality, Barmer is not a ground on which, this Court may entertain the writ petitions for taking action against the Municipal Corporation.
12. The Writ Petition No.9730/2011 is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand). The costs will be realised by the District Magistrate, Barmer and the report will be submitted to the Dy.Registrar(Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
13. Today, five writ petitions and one contempt petition are 10 listed. We are informed that these petitions have also been filed by the petitioner purportedly in public interest, with reliefs targeted against Mr.Mewa Ram Jain.
14. In view of the aforesaid, D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.3185/2011 and D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.3054/2011 filed by the same petitioner, allegedly in public interest raising allegation of grabbing of land of Municipality, Barmer by the members of a Society and illegal regularisation of residential plots in kachchi Bastis' by the Commissioner and employees of Municipality, Barmer respectively, are also dismissed without adjudicating on the causes and complaints.
15. D.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.551/2012 filed by the same petitioner alleging non-compliance of the interim order dated 12.10.2011 passed in D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.3054/2011 is also dismissed on the same grounds and the notices are discharged.
16. In the facts and circumstances brought to our notice, we direct that whenever the petitioner files writ petition in this Court either in public interest or for any other cause, he will give reference of the order passed today in this petition in the first paragraph of the writ petition, failing which, the Court will draw adverse inference against him.
17. A copy of this order be placed in all the connected files. (JAISHREE THAKUR), J.
(SUNIL AMBWANI), Actg.CJ.
MK