IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 172 of 2011 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================== ===============
========================================== =============== JIGNESHBHAI DHIRENDRABHAI GOSWAMI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THRO ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
========================================== =============== Appearance :
MR KG PANDIT for PETITIONER.
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MS. SANGEETA VISHEN for Respondent No.1 MR PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MR JK SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for RESPONDENTS 2 & 3.
========================================== =============== CORAM : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA Date : 06/09/2012
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)
1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“12. That the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
[A] Admit and allow this Public Interest Litigation.
[B] Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the formation of G.T. Nanavati Commission by Government of Gujarat for the purpose of inquiring into the communal riots surfaced out on dated 27.02.2002 at Godhra, which has been granted frequent extensions by Government of Gujarat through Respondent No. 1 and 2 on and from year 2002-03 and last extension will going [sic] to be concluded on dated 31.12.2011 whereby appropriate directions may be imparted upon Respondent No.3 to submit its final report before this Hon'ble Court for the purpose of its kind perusal and thereafter pass appropriate directions upon Respondents with regard to the recommendations which may be made by G.T. Nanavati Commission under the relevant provisions of Commission of Inquiries Act and to be acted upon such recommendations by Government of Gujarat through Respondent No.1 and/or its servants, agents etc. for the purpose of maintaining a sanctity and spirit of formation of the said Commission by Government of Gujarat at the earliest point of time.
[C] Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents, their agents and servants by issuing an appropriate writ or direction to take appropriate action for the purpose of implementation of the recommendations made by G.T. Nanavati Commission at the behest of Government of Gujarat and further be pleased to pass action taken report before this Hon'ble Court for the purpose of its kind perusal.
[D] Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents, their agents and servants to place records available from Respondent No.3 about the interim action taken report borne out from the investigation/inquiry headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati Commission and Justice Akshay Mehta Commission, on any suitable terms and conditions, which may be deemed fit, just and proper to this Hon'ble Court.
[E] Ad interim relief in terms of Para 12[D] be granted.”
1.1 Subsequently, the petitioner prayed for amendment of the writ- application, as a result, prayer 12 (D)(i) to 12 [D][ii] were allowed, which are as under:-
“12[D][i] The petitioner, therefore, prays that Your Lordships further be pleased to pass suitable directions upon Respondent No.1 and 2, their servants, agents etc. to submit an explanation and/or status report before this Hon'ble Court with regard to granting of 9 months extension till 31.12.2012 in favour of Respondent No. 3 G.T. Nanavati Commission with regard to expenses incurred for such extension and reasons for granting of 9 months extension qua Respondent No.3, G.T. Nanavati Commission on any suitable terms and conditions, which may be deemed just and proper to this Hon'ble Court.
12[D][ii] The petitioner further prays to this Hon'ble Court to take appropriate actions qua Respondent No.1 and 2 and/or their servants, agents of Government of Gujarat for disrespect and/or disregard shown by them of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 22.12.2011 passed in this proceedings on the strength of a notification dated 20.12.2011, after seeking appropriate explanation and thereafter passing appropriate action for such defiance and/or disregard shown by them with regard to aforesaid order dated 22.12.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Bench, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and in the special facts and circumstances of the case.
1.3 Mr. Pandit, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, did not press the averments made in paragraph 9(i) to 9 (iii) of the amendment application.
2. The case made out by the petitioner may be summed up thus:
2.1 Initially, the Government of Gujarat had formed a Commission under the relevant provisions of the Commission of Inquiries Act to investigate into the incident which had taken place on 27th February 2002 at Godhra and the subsequent events happened thereafter consisting of Justice G.T. Nanavati, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and Justice K.G. Shah, a former Judge of the High Court of Gujarat. Subsequently, on the death of Mr. K.G. Shah, Justice Akshay Mehta, a former Judge of the High Court of Gujarat was included in the Commission.
2.2 At the time of constituting the Commission, it was declared by the Government of Gujarat that the investigation should be completed and report should be submitted within three months, but by repeated extension of time, the Commission is still continuing. In the process, a sum of Rs.6,32,00,000/- has been spent by the Government of Gujarat out of public money, but till today, no final report has been given. In course of 9 years, no fruitful purpose has been fulfilled by spending such a huge amount. In such circumstances, this Court should pass appropriate directions by way of demanding a status report.
3. This application has been opposed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing affidavit-in-reply and the defence may be summed up thus:
3.1 On 27th February 2002, an unfortunate incident took place when 58 passengers travelling in S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express lost their lives on account of a fire caused near the Godhra Railway Station, and more than 40 passengers sustained injuries. Criminal Complaints came to be filed being C.R. No. 9 of 2002 and 10 of 2002 at Godhra Railway Police Station on 27th February 2002 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 147, 149, 436, 153A read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 141, 150 and 153 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. Later on, the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorists Act, 2002 were also invoked.
3.2 The aforesaid incident was followed by a course of subsequent incidents of violence in the State and the following 8 major cases / incidents took place in the State.
[i]. Vijapur Police Station [Sardarpura incident] [ii]. Visnagar Police Station [Dipda Darwaja incident] [iii]. Prantij Police Station [iv]. Ahmedabd City Naroda Police Station [Naroda Patia incident] [v]. Ahmedabd City Naroda Police Station [Naroda Gam incident] [vi]. Ahmedabad City Meghaninagar Police Station [Gulbarg Society incident.
[vii]. Anand Khambholaj Police Station [Ode-I incident] [viii]. Anand Khambholaj Police Station
3.3 On 28th February 2012, i.e. on the very next day after the incident, the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat made a statement on the floor of the Legislative Assembly that a Commission of Inquiry under section 3 of the Act will be appointed to inquire into the aforesaid incident of fire caused in some coaches of the Sabarmati Express. Thereafter, by notification dated 21st May 2002, a Commission was constituted and the terms of Reference were also expanded, which are as under:
[i]. Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati, a retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was appointed as the Chairman and Mr. Justice K.G. Shah was appointed as a Member.
[ii]. The Commission was required to inquire into and report on the incident of setting on fire some coaches of Sabarmati Express train near Godhra Railway Station on 27.02.2002 and subsequent incident of violence in the State of Gujarat in the aftermath, and adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and deal with some disturbances in Godhra and subsequent disturbances in the State.
3.4 The terms of Reference of the reconstituted Commission referred to above were thereafter amended on 20th July 2004, which are as under:
“(1). To inquire into-
(a). the facts, circumstances and the course of events of the incidents that led to setting on fire some coaches of the Sbarmati Express train on 27.02.2002 near Godhra Railway Station.
(b). the facts, circumstances and course of events of the subsequent incidents of violence in the State in the aftermath of the Godhra incident; and
(c). the adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and deal with the disturbances in Godhra and subsequent disturbances in the State;
(d). Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and organization in both the events referred to in clauses (a) and (b);
(e). Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers.
(i). in dealing with any political or non-political organization which maybe found to have been involved in any of the events referred to hereinabove,
(ii). In the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots,
(iii). In the matter of recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission from time to time.
(2). To ascertain as to whether the incident at Godhra was pre-planned and whether information was available with the agencies which could have been used to prevent the incident.
(3). To recommend suitable measures to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future.
3.5 The Commission is sitting in Public and has permitted several interested parties to participate in the proceedings before it and has been continuing with the proceedings by having examined hundreds of witnesses and receiving thousands of documents and affidavits. At the instance of various parties, several persons have been called for either examination or cross-examination.
3.6 The following facts will disclose the action taken by the Commission in the course of last 9 years:
[i]. Number of affidavits/applications/information received by the Commission : 47,321 [ii]. Names of the parties before the Commission representing different sections of Society:
[a]. Congress (GPCC) [b]. Jan Sangharsh Manch [c]. Central Relief Committee [d]. Jamiat-Ulma-E-Hind [e]. Bhartiya Janta Party [BJP] [f]. Vishwa Hindu Parishad [VHP] [g]. Citizens for Justice and Peace.
[iii]. Number of witness examined by the Commission : 1035 [iv]. Number of public hearings conducted by the Commission in 22 Districts of the State : 281 [v]. Total number of offence cases registered as being inquired by the Commission : 4274 [vi]. Total number of 'A' Summary cases, i.e. cases where names of accused are not available, but cases are duly registered and included in the aforesaid total number of offences cases registered : 2020 [viii]. Number of officers against whom notice under section 8-B of the Commission of Inquiries Act was issued : 28
3.7 On 18th September 2008, the Commission submitted its Part-I of the Report observing interalia that there was a conspiracy to burn Coach S-6 of Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Kar Sevaks travelling in that Coach.
3.8 On 28th October 2009, the Commission directed Special Investigating Team constituted by the Supreme Court of India to produce all relevant material gathered by it in respect of (i). Gulbarg Society incident, (ii). Naroda Patia incident, and (iii). Naroda Gam incident out of the aforesaid eight cases, which appears to be for the reason of inquiring into the area/scope covered by the amended terms of Reference.
3.9 On 14th May 2010, 9th June 2010 and 7th July 2010 and since the filing of the affidavit, 5000 pages of investigation papers have been supplied by SIT in respect of the aforesaid three cases / incidents. However, the Commission directed the SIT to comply with its direction to supply the remaining material gathered during its further investigation.
3.10 On 15th July 2010, SIT informed the Commission that it has approached the Supreme Court of India for clarifications for supply of the rest of the materials.
3.11 The Supreme Court of India passed an order on 19th August 2010 in SLP (Cri) No. 1088 of 2008 observing inter alia that SIT should not divulge any information / material collected by it during the course of investigation except to the trial Court and the Public Prosecutor concerned, if such occasion arises, without leave of the Supreme Court.
3.12 On 12th September 2011, the Supreme Court passed an order and disposed of the aforesaid proceedings, viz. CR.A. No. 1765 of 2011 arising out of SLP (CRI) No. 1088 of 2008 by directing SIT to produce the material gathered by it during the course of further investigation only before the Court of Magistrate.
3.13 On 30th September 2011, the Commission drew attention of the SIT about the disposal of the aforesaid proceedings and reiterated its direction to supply the material gathered by it.
3.14 On 1st October 2011, SIT appears to have addressed a letter once again, referring to the order of the Supreme Court.
3.15 On 11th November 2011, the Commission requested the State Government go grant extension upto 31st March 2012 by observing inter alia that the Commission, in all probability, would submit its report by 31st March 2012.
3.16 On 17th November 2011, the SIT approached the Supreme Court for seeking clarification for production of the remainder material before the Commission, and in view of the above, the State Government issued a Notification dated 20th December 2011 extending the term of the Commission till 31st March 2012.
3.17 On 22nd February 2012, the Commission once again wrote a letter and conveyed to SIT that if it fails to produce the required material as directed, the Commission would be constrained to issue warrant against it unless it obtained order from the Supreme Court for non-production of the material.
3.18 On 9th March 2012, the Commission wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, requesting interalia for further extension for at least 3 months from the date the requisite material from SIT would be available to the Commission, and in view of the fact that the record is voluminous running into few thousand pages, it may take about 3 months to go through and scrutinize the said material and one month thereafter for completing and submitting the final report.
3.19 On 26th March 2012, the SIT once again mentioned the aforesaid clarificatory application before the Supreme Court. However, since the subject-matter of the said clarificatory application pertained to a Special Bench consisting of three different Judges, the Bench before which the application was mentioned showed its disinclination to pass any order on the said date, and it was conveyed that the matter would be considered by the same three-judge Bench when constituted after re-opening of the Supreme Court on 2nd July 2012.
3.20 In the meantime, on 26th March 2012 itself, a party called P.U.C.L., Gujarat Chapter filed SLP (C) No. 5875 of 2012 seeking permission to file the said petition, inter alia challenging the judgment and order dated 1st February 2012 of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 2419 of 2009 with reference to the orders passed in the proceedings before the Commission as well as seeking an interim relief by inter alia praying to the effect that the Commission should submit its final report and also to forward its interim report dated 18th September 2008 to the office of the Governor of Gujarat.
3.21 On 27th March 2012, acceding to the request made by the Commission by its letter dated 9th March 2012, the State Government issued a Notification extending the term of the Commission till 31st December 2012.
3.22 On 7th May 2012, the Supreme Court passed an order rejecting the aforesaid Special Leave Petition as withdrawn, by recording a statement of the petitioners that they would like to approach the High Court, but without deeming it fit to grant any of the reliefs prayed for in the said SLP.
3.23 On 8th June 2012, SIT wrote a letter to the State Government informing interalia that it has already approached the Supreme Court seeking clarification/direction in the matter relating to divulging the information collected by it to the Commission, and the matter had not come up before the Supreme Court for hearing.
3.24 From the above fact, it is clear that in view of the wide scope of inquiry before the Commission and in view of the subsequent events, there has been no unreasonable delay on the part of the Commission in concluding the proceedings.
3.25 The writ-petitioner has no legal right in his favour to seek for the relief prayed for in the application as for pendency of the proceedings before the Commission, none of his legal or fundamental rights have been infringed and therefore, the writ-application should be dismissed.
4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder thereby virtually repeating and reiterating its statements made in the writ-application and also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 11742 of 1984, 11743 of 1984 and 11744 of 1984 wherein the Supreme Court observed that after submission of the report by the Commission, the same should not be kept pending for consideration by the concerned Government.
4.1 By filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the report dated 31st March 2002 of the Spokesman of Human Right Protection Council of Gujarat, Ahmedabad.
5. Mr. Pandit, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, strenuously contended before us that having regard to the expenditure made by the State Government for continuation of the Commission, it is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed for in the application, as otherwise, it is an abuse of public money.
6. Mr. Trivedi, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government, has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Pandit and has submitted that in the matter of constitution of an Inquiry Commission at the instance of the State Government under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiries Act, no legal right exists in favour of a citizen to challenge such decision. Mr. Trivedi further contends that the State Government, having regard to the incident which occurred at the relevant point of time thought it fit to exercise its power conferred upon it under the Commission of Inquiries Act and thereafter, has extended the time for submission of report in view of the fact that huge number of witnesses were examined, huge number of documents were filed and the Commission has also submitted a preliminary report. In such circumstances, for just and reasonable grounds, the State Government having extended the time for submission of report, the writ-application is not maintainable. Mr. Trivedi submits that right that is conferred under the Commission of Inquiries Act upon the State Government is to constitute such Commission and it is for the guidance and taking subsequent action on the basis of report submitted by the Commission. Mr. Trivedi submits that even the report that will be submitted is not binding upon the Government and for delayed submission of report by the Commission, none of the rights of the petition has been infringed.
6.1 In support of his contentions, Mr. Trivedi places strong reliance upon the following decisions:
[1] Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia & others v. Justice Tendolkar & others, reported in AIR 1958 S.C. 538
[2] Kehar Singh & Others v. State [Delhi Administration], reported in [1988] 3 SCC 609
[3] Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Justice B. Lentin & others, reported in [1988] 4 SCC 419
[4] Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. The Committee of Inquiry & Anr., reported in AIR 1989 SC 714
[5] Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC 733
[6] Sri Narayanadoss Mahant & Anr. v. Sri T. Neeladri Rao & Anr., reported in AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 148
[7] Md. Ibrahim Khan v. Susheel Kumar & Anr., reported in AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh 69
[8] Central Intelligence Officer, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Trivandrum v. Commission of Inquiry [Marad Incidents] Kozikode & Anr., reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 2944
[9] State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor, reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 2957
[10] Decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated February 1, 2012 rendered in LPA 2419 of 2009
7. Therefore, one of the questions that arises for determination in this writ-application is, whether there is any legal right and corresponding legal duty, which can be said to have been contravened so as to issue a writ of mandamus. Another question that arises in this writ application is, in a case where the Commission wants to examine material collected by the SIT after investigation in respect of three different cases for enabling it to complete the inquiry, whether such stance of the Commission is justiciable so as to call for interference by this Court. A further question that arises is, whether this Court, sitting in its writ-jurisdiction can pass an order regarding grant of extension of time of the Commission by the State Government.
8. Before entering into the aforesaid questions, we propose to consider the scope of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the legal effect of various orders passed by a Commission constituted under the above Act.
9. In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and others reported in AIR 1958 SC 538, the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the said judgment elaborated to some extent the scope of inquiry under the provisions of the Act, which are quoted below :-
“9. … … … An inquiry necessarily involves investigation into facts and necessitates the collection of material facts from the evidence adduced before or brought to the notice of the person or body conducting the inquiry and the recording of its findings on those facts in its report cannot but be regarded as ancillary to the inquiry itself, for the inquiry becomes useless unless the findings of the inquiring body are made available to the Government which set up the inquiry. It is, in our judgment, equally ancillary that the person or body conducting the inquiry should express its own view on the facts found by it for the consideration of the appropriate Government in order to enable it to take such measure as it may think fit to do. The whole purpose of setting up of a Commission of Inquiry consisting of experts will be frustrated and the elaborate process of inquiry will be deprived of its utility if the opinion and the advice of the expert body as to the measures the situation disclosed calls for cannot be placed before the Government for consideration notwithstanding that doing so cannot be to the prejudice of anybody because it has no force of its own. In our view the recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry are of great importance to the Government in order to enable it to make up its mind as to what legislative or administrative measures should be adopted to eradicate the evil found or to implement the beneficial objects it has in view. From this point of view, there can be no objection even to the Commission of Inquiry recommending the imposition of some form of punishment which will, in its opinion, be sufficiently deterrent to delinquents in future. But seeing that the Commission of Inquiry has no judicial powers and its report will purely be recommendatory and not effective proprio vigore and the statement made by any person before the Commission of Inquiry is, under S. 6 of the Act, wholly inadmissible in evidence in any future proceedings, civil or criminal, there can be no point in the Commission of Inquiry making recommendations for taking any action “as and by way of securing redress or punishment” which, in agreement with the High Court, we think, refers, in the context, to wrongs already done or committed, for redress or punishment for such wrongs, if any, has to be imposed by a Court of law properly constituted exercising its own discretion on the facts and circumstances of the case and without being in any way influenced by the view of any person or body, howsoever august or high powered it may be.”
10. Again subsequently in the case of Kehar Singh and others vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1988) 3 SCC
609, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 236 and 237 further elaborated the scope of an inquiry after taking into account the statement of objects and reasons of the aforesaid Act. Those are quoted below:
“236. It will be clear from these provisions that the Act was intended to cover matters of public importance. In matters of public importance it may be necessary for the government to fix the responsibility on individuals or to kill harmful rumours. The ordinary law of the land may not fit in such cases apart from it being time-consuming.
237. The Commission under our Act is given the power to regulate its own procedure and also to decide whether to sit in camera or in public. A Commission appointed under the Act does not decide any dispute. There are no parties before the Commission. This is no lis. The Commission is not a court except for a limited purpose. The procedure of the Commission is inquisitorial rather than accusatorial. The Commission more often may have to give assurance to persons giving evidence before it that their statements will not be used in any subsequent proceedings except for perjury. Without such assurance, the persons may not come forward to give statements. If persons have got lurking fear that their statements given before the Commission are likely to be used against them or utilized for productive use on them in any other proceeding, they may be reluctant to expose themselves before the Commission. Then the Commission would not be able to perform its task. The Commission would not be able to reach the nuggets of truth from the obscure horizon. The purpose for which the Commission is constituted may be defeated.”
11. Again in the case of Dr Baliram Waman Hiray vs. Justice B. Lentin and others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 419, a Bench of the Supreme Court made it further clear that under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the Commission is fictionally a civil court only for the purpose of the contempt punishable under Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the condition that it has not the right itself to punish the contemnors, a right which other Courts possess under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It was further pointed out that the fiction relating to proceedings before the Commission is confined to offences that are punishable under Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code referred to in sub-section (5) of the Act, and does not extend beyond this limit.
12. From the above observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the role of a Commission under the Act is that of a recommendatory nature which is not even binding upon the Government to whom recommendation is made.
13. Such being the position, in our opinion, Mr Trivedi, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, is quite justified in contending that extension of time for submission of report granted by the State Government does not affect any of the rights of the petitioner and as such, there is no scope of passing direction in this writ-application as prayed for by the petitioner.
14. It is now a settled law that in order to successfully maintain a writ-application, the petitioner must establish beyond reasonable doubt that by the action or the inaction on the part of a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, any of his legal or fundamental rights has been infringed. By establishment of a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the right of no citizen is affected, as pointed out by the decision of the Supreme Court quoted above. The finding of the Commission is merely recommendatory in nature for the purpose of advising the State Government for effective control of the situation in future. We have already pointed out that the State Government can, even after submission of recommendations, refuse to implement the same.
15. Therefore, in the case before us, it is not within the province of this Court sitting in a jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to pass any direction at the instance of the petitioner to conclude the proceeding and give final report within a specified period.
16. As regards the extension of time granted by the State Government, we find that the Commission intends to rely upon the report given by a Special Investigating Team appointed by the Supreme Court and for not getting the entire report, the Commission is unable to conclude the proceeding. It appears that the Special Investigating Team has already approached the Supreme Court thereby seeking direction as to whether it should disclose the report to the Commission and the matter is fixed in near future. In such circumstances, we do not find any wrong in the order passed by the State Government extending the time of submission of report till 31st December 2012, as till today, the Commission has not yet got the report in its entirety and it sought for three months’ period after getting of such report.
17. We further find that the scope of the inquiry has been extended in the past and having examined huge number of witnesses and number of documents exhibited, the delay in disposal of the proceeding cannot be said to be unreasonable.
18. Regarding the last submission of Mr Pandit that continuation of the Commission amounts to wastage of public money, we may, in this connection, rely upon the observations passed by this very Bench in a recent case of RAJESH LAXMICHAND MOTA Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY & OTHERS being
Writ Petition (PIL) No.21 of 2012 disposed of on February 21, 2012 while deciding the question of extent of jurisdiction of a writ- court in a Public Interest Litigation to question the expenditures made by a State for any cause:
“In the background of this analysis of the constitutional scheme on financial power of the State, we do not think this Court is competent to go into the question as to whether the expenditure incurred by the Government is for a public purpose or not, or whether it is wise or not. Our Constitution envisages that the executive is responsible to the legislature and every policy and action is subject to its scrutiny and that is in consonance with Westminister system of Parliamentary democracy. Judicial interference is permissible when the action of the Government is unconstitutional and not when such action is not wise or that the extent of expenditure is not for good of the State. All such questions must be thrashed out in the legislature and not in Courts. The complaint of the petitioner is in the nature of criticism of the Governmental expenditure and the wisdom thereof.
But, we are of the view that such an exercise can be done only in other forums and in the manner and method as suggested by the Supreme Court in Common Cause (supra) and not before this Court. If such questions are allowed to be raised before court, every expenditure of the State can be called in question, both as to the nature and extent thereof, in which event the functioning of the Government itself will be hampered.”
19. We, therefore, find no substance in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Pundit regarding expenditure incurred by the State Government for continuation of the Commission.
20. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find that for prolongation of the Commission none of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner has been infringed justifying passing of direction as prayed for in this application. Similarly, in the matter of extension of time for submission of report also, the petitioner cannot be prejudiced in any way for such extension of time.
21. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, dismiss this writ-application as devoid of any substance. No costs.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, C.J.] mathew [J.B.PARDIWALA. J.]