2004 (4) TMI 578 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Decision on Fraudulent Writ Petitions

N.K. PRASADA Versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

N.K. PRASADA Versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. - 2004 AIR 2538, 2004 (3) SCR 1178, 2004 (6) SCC 299, 2004 (1) Suppl. JT 326, 2004 (4) SCALE 845 Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of Public Interest Litigations (PILs)2. Alleged Malfunctioning and Dismantling of the Special Investigating Team3. Imposition of Costs4. Alleged Fraud and Abuse of Judicial Process5. Role and Conduct of the Appellant6. Role of Advocates and Registry7. Principles of Natural Justice8. Scope and Abuse of Public Interest LitigationDetailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of Public Interest Litigations (PILs)The judgment addresses two PILs filed by B. Kistaiah and Digumarthi Premchand, alleging malfunctioning of the Commissioner of Central Excise and dismantling of the Special Investigating Team. The High Court found that these PILs were engineered by the appellant to avoid a transfer order dated 10.3.1997. The Court observed that the appellant provided the material for the writ petitions, which were filed with an oblique motive.2. Alleged Malfunctioning and Dismantling of the Special Investigating TeamThe writ petitioners contended that the dismantling of the Special Investigation Team by the Commissioner-I Central Excise & Customs, Hyderabad Commissionerate was to help dishonest traders and prevent cases related to excise duty evasion. The High Court directed the respondents to file counter-affidavits and produce records related to the Special Investigation Team and its disbanding.3. Imposition of CostsThe High Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the writ petitioner and the appellant, with the appellant required to pay Rs. 20,000. The Court found that the writ petitions were a gross abuse of judicial process and dismissed them with exemplary costs to deter such misuse in the future.4. Alleged Fraud and Abuse of Judicial ProcessThe High Court found that a fraud was practiced upon the court, presumably in collusion with some officers of the Registry. The CBI investigation revealed that the writ petitions were filed fraudulently, with the appellant playing a key role. The High Court noted that the appellant had acted from behind the scenes to avoid a transfer order and had set up the petitioners to file the writ petitions with reckless and unfounded allegations.5. Role and Conduct of the AppellantThe appellant was found to be the 'kingpin' behind the filing of the writ petitions. The High Court noted that the appellant provided the material for the writ petitions and was actively involved in their filing. The appellant's conduct was deemed to be an abuse of the judicial process, and he was held responsible for the fraudulent activities.6. Role of Advocates and RegistryThe High Court expressed its unhappiness over the role of the lawyers involved in the writ petitions. The Court noted that the Registry had submitted several reports revealing how a fraud was practiced upon the court. The involvement of the appellant and some officers of the Registry was highlighted, indicating a collusion to manipulate the judicial process.7. Principles of Natural JusticeThe appellant contended that he was not given an opportunity of hearing. However, the Court found that the appellant had intervened in the writ applications and was aware of the proceedings. The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the appellant had chosen not to appear and had allowed the proceedings to go on without raising any objections.8. Scope and Abuse of Public Interest LitigationThe judgment underscores the abuse of the forum of public interest litigation. The Court noted that the PILs were filed with an oblique motive and were an abuse of the judicial process. The Court emphasized the need for self-restraint in exercising jurisdiction in PILs and highlighted the importance of ensuring that such litigations serve their intended purpose of addressing genuine public interest issues.ConclusionThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The Court upheld the High Court's findings that the appellant was the mastermind behind the fraudulent writ petitions and had abused the judicial process to avoid a transfer order. The imposition of costs and the dismissal of the writ petitions were deemed appropriate to deter such misuse of public interest litigation in the future.