JUDGMENT U.K. Dhaon and Alok K. Singh, JJ.
1. Heard Shri Pankaj Agnihotri, holding brief of Shrl Prashant Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, the learned Counsel for opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 5. Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 4 has been accepted by Shri A.K. Srivastava.
2. The petitioners have alleged that petitioner No. 1 is a registered Association which is looking after the welfare of the members who are obtaining financial assistance from U.P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board and petitioner No. 2 is Secretary of the Association.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the provisions of Section 35A of the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960 are unconstitutional and the same is ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the recovery certificates dated 14.9.2005, 19.7.2005 and 10.9.2002, contained in Annexures-4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition, are illegal.
4. Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 on the basis of instructions, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is concealment of material facts. He further submits that the petitioner No. 2 has not disclosed that Writ Petition No. 49370 of 2002, Writ Petition No. 53146 of 2002, Writ Petition No. 23933 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 25359 of 2003 were filed in this Hon'ble Court at Allahabad against the recovery of the loan taken by M/s Maud Kala Gramin Vikas Samiti and all those writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Allahabad by the judgment and order dated 6.12.2005.
5. Shri Rakesh Bajpayee, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 5 submits that petitioner No. 1, Association was registered only on 24.3.2006 and the petitioners have deliberately not mentioned in the writ petition as to who are the members of petitioner No. 1 Association. He further submits that as the writ petitions against the recovery have been dismissed by this Hon'ble Court at Allahabad, an exemplary cost may be imposed on the petitioners to prevent the filing of frivolous petitions before this Hon'ble Court.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. From the judgment and order dated 6.12.2005 passed by this Court at Allahabad, a copy of which has been placed before us, it reveals that loan was taken by M/s. Maud Kala Gramin Vikas Samiti from U.P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board through its Secretary, Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, who is petitioner No. 2 in the instant writ petition. When the loan was not repaid by M/s. Maud Kala Gramin Vikas Samiti, the recovery was issued against the Samiti and Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma being the Secretary of the Samiti filed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49370 of 2002 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53146 of 2002; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23933 of 2003 was filed by Suresh Chandra Sharma against the auction notice dated 17.5.2003 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25359 of 2003 was filed by Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma against sale proclamation issued by the Tehsil Authorities dated 20.6.2003. On 6.12.2005, a Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad while dismissing the aforesaid four writ petitions, passed the following order:
M/s. Maud Kala Gramin Vikas Samiti (the Samiti) had taken a loan from U.P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board (the Board). The Samiti could not pay the loan and the recovery was issued against it. Writ Petition No. 49370 of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 53146 of 2002 have been filed by the Samiti. Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma is the Secretary of the Samiti and he is also guarantor of the loan. He has filed Writ Petition No. 23933 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 25359 of 2003 against the recovery.
We have heard counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel and Sri I.M. Kushwaha for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner submits:
(i) The loan could not be paid as the Board did not give working capital,
(ii) The working capital was illegally not released by the Board on the ground that the petitioner has not utilised the loan.
The aforesaid contentions of the petitioner have been denied by the respondents. These are questions of fact and cannot be gone into the writ petition. The petitioners may, if any are so advised, file a suit.
With these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed.
8. The petitioners have no where mentioned in the instant writ petition that earlier four writ petitions in this Court at Allahabad were filed in respect of the recovery and auction. The petitioner No. 1 Association was registered only on 24.3.2006 and the recovery, relates to 2002-2003 and as such the petitioner No. 1 Association has no locus to challenge the alleged recovery certificates dated 14.9.2005, 19.7.2005 and 10.9.2002, contained in Annexures-4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner No. 2, who was Secretary of Maud Kala Gramin Vikas Samiti, has no where mentioned in the writ petition that four petitions earlier filed by Maud Kala Gramin Vikas Samiti and the petitioner No. 2 before this Court at Allahabad were dismissed on 6.12.2005 by a common judgment and order.
9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of DattaraJ Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , has observed as under in paragraph 12 of the report:
Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons of member of the public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
10. In paragraph 1 of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have stated that they have not filed any writ petition on the subject-matter in hand before this Hon'ble Court at Allahabad/Lucknow, although in fact four writ petitions were filed by petitioner No. 2 being Secretary of Maud Kala Gramin Vikas Samiti against the same recovery certificates dated 14.9.2005, 19.7.2005 and 10.9.2002. Since there is concealment of material facts, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The writ petition is dismissed.
11. To prevent the filing of frivolous petitions, we quantify cost at Rs. 50,000 payable by petitioner No. 2 to U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Lucknow within 3 months from today. The costs, if not deposited with U.P. State Legal Services Authority. Lucknow within 3 months, shall be executable as a decree.
12. The Registrar of this Court shall send a copy of this order to the Executive Chairman of the U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Lucknow.