Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the extension of service of respondent no. 2 on the post of Cabinet Secretary to the State Government by order dated 30.05.2010 which has been produced before this Court. By order dated 11.06.2010, we have directed the registry to send the record of Writ Petition No. 1713(MB) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 86(MB) of 2008.
Admittedly, the appointment of the respondent no. 2 has been impugned in the writ petition no. 1713(MB) of 2008. Registry informed that the paper- book of the Writ Petition No. 1713(MB) of 2008 is not available in the office.
Since the basic order has been challenged in the the pending writ petition and we are not in a position to peruse the record, no order may be passed at this stage. The impugned order is consequential order with regard to the extension of service of respondent no. 2.
Sri S.N.Shukla submits that the case has been fixed for 5th July, 2010. Present writ petition be also listed before appropriate Bench alongwith Writ Petition No. 1713(MB) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 86(MB) of 2008.
While opposing the writ petition, a preliminary objection has been raised that PIL is not maintainable and petitioner is not aggrieved party relying the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Division Bench has already taken a decision while admitting the writ petition for hearing vide order dated 24.12.2009, hence, no finding may be recorded at this stage and it will be considered by appropriate Bench in due course.
Petition was heard on 11.06.2010 for admission while directing the learned Additional Advocate General to produce the order of appointment/extension same has not been filed with the writ petition.
Our attention was drawn to the news items published in the news paper 'The Indian Express' dated 12th June, 2010. The entire news published in the news paper Indian Express is reproduced as under :-
"The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court directed the state government on Friday to produce records related to the extension of service granted to Cabinet Secretary Shashank Shekhar. Hearing a petition challenging the extension, the Bench, comprising Justices Devi Prasad Singh and Satish Chandra, dismissed the state government's argument raising questions on the maintainability of the petition. Shekhar is yet to reply to a High Court notice issued in December in which he was asked to explain the "authority under which he is holding the post of cabinet secretary". " Our submission that High Court had already decided on the maintainability issued and has issued a notice to the respondent, to which he is yet to file a reply, was accepted by the court," said Satya Narayan Shukla, advocate and a former IAS officer who is pleading the case on behalf of an organization called Lok Prahari. Further, the court also rejected the argument that the current petition filed in continuation with the existing pending PIL does not meet the criteria laid down under the amended High Court rules related with filing of PILs."The court found the argument baseless and sought records related to the service extension," said Shukla, who told court that the extension granted to Shekhar on May 25 is illegal, as the case is pending in the High Court. The case will now be heard on June 14. Shekhar, a pilot and non-IAS officer, was appointed as cabinet secretary by the Mayawati government in 2007. Subsequently, two PILs, one by Shiv Prakash Shukla and other by Lok Prahari, challenging the creation of the post and the appointment of a non-IAS officer to it, were filed in the High Court. After almost two years, the court on December 24 admitted the PIL and issued a notice to Shekhar. But as the matter didn't come up for hearing and reply were also not filed by Shekhar. Lok Prahari moved court, pleading for urgent hearings. Before the court could decide on the matter, the state government, on May 25, granted an extension to Shekhar, a week before be was due to attain the age of superannuation on May 31. The petition argues that the post of cabinet secretary may overshadow and undermine the post of chief secretary, who is governed by the All India Service Rules."
At the face of record, news published in the news paper is incorrect. Though Media has right to publish the news with regard to the Court's proceeding but the publication must be correct in letter and spirit. Any dilution or circumvention of the order passed by this Court based on incorrect fact or even the publication of correct fact with tenor to adjudicate pending controversy seems to be improper and not permissible which shall amount to interference to the administration of justice and Court may proceed to take action for criminal contempt.
Before singing order after lunch, record of Writ Petition No. 1713 (M/B) of 2008 has been sent by registry.
Sri S.N. Shukla submits that he has not made any statement to the reporter in contravention of order dated 11.06.2010 passed by this Court.
Let Sri S.N.Shukla file personal affidavit explaining the fact. Registry shall issue notice to the Editor of the news paper 'The Indian Express' published from Lucknow forthwith calling response. The Court may proceed to frame the question with regard to permissible limit for publication of news items by Media in pending proceeding and initiate appropriate proceeding against the Editor of Indian Express as well as Sri S.N. Shukla, learned counsel representing the petitioner. Copy of order shall be sent to Editor of the Newspaper along with notice.
List on 05.07.2010.
Order Date :- 14.6.2010/krishna/*