IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 155 of 2012 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 ?
========================================================= PRAVINCHANDRA MUGATLAL JOSHI - PETITIONER Versus STATE REGISTRAR & 3 - RESPONDENT ========================================================= Appearance :
MR PM LAKHANI for PETITIONER : 1, MRS RP LAKHANI for PETITIONER : 1, MS. DIMPLE L. JOSHI for PETITIONER : 1, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for RESPONDENT : 1, None for RESPONDENT : 2 - 4.
========================================================= HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE CORAM :
MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 8/11/2012
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. This writ petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a resident of Khardeshwarkrupa, Kalavad, situated in the District of Jamnagar and claiming to be a well reputed Social Activist of the village with the following prayers:
“(a) Direct the respondent authorities more particularly the respondent no.1 to hold necessary inquiry and take appropriate steps/actions against all the concerned and the responsible persons more particularly against the respondent no.4 for having misused and misutilised his powers in the facts narrated herein above and submit a report to this Hon’ble Court on the action taken by him to this Hon’ble Court within stipulated period of time;
(b) To also call for the explanation of the respondents herein for showing undue favouritism to the respondent no.4 as narrated herein above, in spite of the fact that the respondent no.4 has been penalized for various irregularities and has committed number of irregularities by misusing his power and authority;
(c) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondent no.1 be directed to remove the respondent no.4 from the posts presently held by him and ensure that he is not entrusted with the work of independent responsibility of key post;
(d) To pass any other appropriate and just order/s.”
2. The case made-out by the petitioner in this writ petition may be summarized as under :
2.1) The petitioner is a Director of Navjeevan Kalavad Taluka Kharid-Vechan Sahakari Sangh Ltd., and also a District Representative of Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. The petitioner is also a General Secretary of Taluka Congress Committee, Kalavad, Dist: Jamnagar. It is his case that the respondent no.4 is a Government Officer and is misusing his powers and authorities under the sweet-will of the ruling party of the Government of Gujarat and despite many complaints and duly proved irregularities and illegalities, the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are not responding to the same. According to the petitioner the respondent o.4 was held guilty for irregularities, illegality and misappropriation of funds and after a full-fledged Departmental Inquiry, penalty was imposed upon the respondent no.4 vide order dated 20/4/2010 whereby the increment upto 2 stages was reduced for 2 years with future effect. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was challenged by the respondent no.4 before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.11429/2009 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12/4/2010.
3. According to the petitioner, despite the aforesaid penalty having been imposed upon the respondent no.4 and confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court, the Government has conferred upon the respondent no.4 with as many as seven additional charges of the various Departments.
4. The petitioner has cited few instances of alleged misuse of powers at the end of the Respondent no.4 as reflected from the averments made in Para-4.4 of the petition. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent no.4 is not a fit person to hold the additional charges of various departments and necessary action deserves to be taken against the respondent no.4.
5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.
6. We have noticed that various allegations have been leveled by the petitioner against the respondent no.4,more particularly, as regards misuse of powers and other financial irregularities and illegalities. However, the foundation of the petition appears to be the order passed by this High Court in Special Civil Application No.11429/2009 dated 12/4/2010. It appears that the respondent no.4 had challenged the order dated 11/9/2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority against him imposing punishment of withholding of two increments with future effect for 2 years. The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the relevant aspects of the matter had refused to interfere with the said order of penalty and accordingly the petition was dismissed. However, this by itself would not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the other allegations which have been leveled against the respondent no.4 are also true and necessary action deserves to be taken against the respondent no.4. We are not inclined to entertain this petition mainly on the ground that there are highly disputed questions of fact and this Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make a roving and fishing inquiry on the strength of such allegations. Whether a particular person is fit enough to hold a post is for the State Authorities to decide and it is not for this Court sitting in a Public Interest Litigation to direct the authorities to initiate action against the respondent no.4 and withdraw all the additional charges from the respondent no.4. From the materials on record, it also appears that the petitioner has some personal grudge against the respondent no.4 and therefore, the bonafide of the petitioner is also highly doubtful. If the petitioner claims to be a public spirited citizen and also a well reputed social activist of the village then it is always open for him to even lodge a criminal complaint, as criminal machinery can be set in to motion by any person. However, the petitioner seems to have chosen to file this Public Interest Litigation wherein he has not been able to establish violation or infringement of any of his fundamental rights or any other legal rights. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 is not entitled in law to hold the Public Office due to lack of necessary qualifications or the appointment being contrary to the statutory Rules or Regulations. The petitioner has not prayed for any writ of quo-warranto but wants this Court to direct the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to initiate necessary inquiry and action against respondent no.4 on the ground of alleged misuse of powers. We have already observed earlier, that it is not permissible sitting in a Public Interest Jurisdiction to undertake any roving or fishing inquiry.
7. We, however, clarify that we have otherwise not gone into the merit of this petition. It will be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.] Ankit* [J.B. PARDIWALA, J.]