IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 91 of 2011 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= ILLIYASKHAN FAIJMOHAMMAD NAGORI - PETITIONER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - RESPONDENT ========================================================= Appearance :
MR SP MAJMUDAR for PETITIONER : 1,MR KUNTAL A JOSHI for PETITIONER : 1, MR PK JANI, LD.GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MS SHRUTI PATHAK, LD.ASST. GOVT. PLEADER for RESPONDENT : 1 - 3.
========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 30/08/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
“12(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the concerned respondents, more particularly respondent No.1 to take appropriate action pursuant to the representations/ complaint dated 11.04.2011 and 02.06.2011 (at ANNEXURE-D and ANNEXURE-E respectively hereto) with regard to irregularities and misappropriation committed of the Government Vaniki Vikas Pariyojna for the Iqbalgadh Wildlife Sanctuary and also with regard to corruption committed by officers of the forest department and further be pleased to direct the respondent-State Government to submit a report before this Hon'ble Court with regard to action taken in this regard;
(B) During pendency and Final disposal of the present petition Your Lordships may be pleased to direct concerned respondents, more particularly respondent No.1 to take appropriate action pursuant to the representations/ complaint dated 11.04.2011 and 02.06.2011 of the petitioner (at ANNEXURE-D and ANNEXURE-E respectively hereto);”
2. The case as made out by the petitioner in this petition may be summarized as under :
2.1 The petitioner claims to be a public spirited citizen and has preferred this petition praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction for appropriate inquiry against the persons who are responsible for financial irregularities, misappropriation and corruption with regard to Government grant which was received under the Gujarat Vaniki Vikas Pariyojna for Iqbalgadh Wildlife Sanctuary for the year 2010-11. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a trustee of Muslim Kelavani Mandal. The said Trust runs City Secondary and Higher Secondary School at Palanpur, where education is being imparted to around 1800 students. The petitioner is also in the business of fisheries and is involved in social activities.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Range Forest Officer, Balundra Range, Iqbalgadh, with regard to the grant received for Balundra Range. He also sought information as regards dates on which such grants were received and the bank accounts in which the amount was deposited. The petitioner had also sought information with regard to the expenses, bills, wages paid to the labourers, the work carried out for removing certain weeds, etc.
2.3 It is also the case of the petitioner that the information provided to him reveals that under the aforesaid Vikas Pariyojna, a grant of Rs.32,90,000/- was sanctioned in favour of Wildlife Sanctuary for removal of invasive alien species ('Gando Bawal') spread in the area of 470 hectares for the year 2010-11.
2.4 It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the information provided expenses to the tune of Rs.5,26,500/- are being shown between December 06, 2010 and January 15, 2011 as per Voucher Nos.114 to 133 and Nos.142 to 148;
also between January 01, 2011 to January 15, 2011 expenses of Rs.7,00,200/- have been shown as per Voucher Nos.354 to 391. Thereafter, from January 16, 2011 to January 31, 2011 the expenses to the tune of Rs.1,75,025/- have been shown as per Voucher Nos.263 to 273. According to the petitioner, for the period between February 06, 2010 and February 15, 2011, total amount of Rs.32,90,000/- was withdrawn from the Bank by preparing vouchers. It is the case of the petitioner that photographs of the Wildlife Sanctuary were published in newspaper on March 01, 2011 suggesting that the work of removing alien species was still in progress. According to the petitioner, the entire amount of Rs.32,90,000/- has been misappropriated by the authorities concerned and, therefore, an inquiry be ordered.
This is the sum and substance of the petition.
3. Notice was issued upon the respondents. The respondents have appeared and opposed this petition by way of filing affidavit-in-reply. The stand of the respondent No.2 taken in the affidavit-in-reply may be summarized as under :
3.1 As against the expenditure of Rs.32,90,000/- in removing of alien species (Gando Bawal) a sum of Rs.66 lac was received by putting the material in auction. All necessary records have been maintained accordingly. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that no financial irregularity or any misappropriation has been noticed at the end of any of the Forest Officers. According to the respondent No.2, this project of removing invasive alien species like 'Gando Bawal' was very much necessary to improve the quality of the habitat of the sanctuary. Moreover, removal of 'Gando Bawal' helps in growing ethnic species like Bor and Garmalo, which are eaten by sloth bears.
3.2 It is also the case of the respondent No.2 that no public interest is involved in the present petition and the petition has been preferred with an oblique motive. It is also alleged that the petitioner is in the business of fisheries and he works with different cooperative societies within the area of the sanctuary. As these cooperative societies were violating the law, legal steps were taken against such societies and the business of fishing was stopped invoking provisions of The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. As the petitioner was engaged in the business of fishing and as steps were taken against such societies, the business of the petitioner got affected and that is the reason why the petitioner is raising hue and cry. It is alleged that the petitioner himself is a defaulter of Forest Department inasmuch as he had participated in an auction of fuel wood carried out by the Range Forest Officer, Amirgadh in the year 1994-95 and though he had participated in the auction and was the highest bidder, the sum of Rs.40,714/- is still due and payable by the petitioner to the Forest Department.
3.3 It is also the case of the respondent No.2 that on July 26, 2011 the petitioner illegally trespassed into the sanctuary area and started clicking photographs without permission from the Forest Officer. The petitioner was reprimanded for this act and in retaliation he misbehaved with the Forest Department Staff. An FIR was registered being I-C.R. No.43 of 2011 with Amirgadh Police Station against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3.4 It is the case of the respondent No.2 that an amount of Rs.32,90,000/- had been used upto February 15, 2011 and the stipulated work had been successfully completed. No new work was undertaken after February 15, 2011 and the allegations of misappropriation of amount are frivolous, baseless and false.
This is the sum and substance of the case of the respondents.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, we find that there are highly disputed questions of fact involved in this petition. The petitioner has levelled bald allegations without therebeing any cogent material in support of the same so as to even make out a prima facie case. We are of the view that in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court in a Public Interest Litigation could not make a roving inquiry. No case is made out for grant of any of the reliefs as prayed for in the petition as we are not satisfied even with the bona fide of the petitioner.
6. In the result, therebeing no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Chief Justice)
(J.B. Pardiwala, J)
Aakar