2022 (6) TMI 488 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Public Interest Litigations, Emphasizes Genuine Public Interest Claims

The court deemed the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) maintainable despite challenges to the petitioner's credentials and alleged mala fide intentions. ... Maintainability of writ petition - Alternative appellate remedy - Allegation of obtaining mining lease by by mis-utilizing the Constitutional posts - violation of Section 9-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - whether the respondent no.7 has suffered any disqualification by executing the mining lease is pending before the Election Commission of India? - HELD THAT:- This Court, in order to answer the issue of credentials of the petitioner, has gone across the affidavit and supplementary affidavits filed by the writ petitioner in the writ petitions in order to scrutinize as to whether such credentials have been given or not. From its perusal, it is evident that the petitioner has disclosed that the petitioner is tax payer and engaged in business for his livelihood. The petitioner has no personal interest either direct or indirect in the subject matter of instant Public Interest Litigations. The petitioner obtained information through R.T.I Act and he filed several Public Interest Petitions before this Court, details of which, have been given in preceding paragraphs. It further appears from the supplementary affidavit dated 21.04.2022, in paragraph 3 that prior to him one Late Diwan Indranil Sinha had sent representations with all the details of the companies and documents before the Director, C.B.I as also to other constitutional bodies. Whether, merely on the ground of non-compliance of technicality for filing the Public Interest Litigation, should the Public Interest Litigation be thrown out by the High Court even if incriminating materials have surfaced? - HELD THAT:- Reference in this regard may be made to Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 wherein it has been stated that only those matter shall be treated as Public Interest Litigation, which involves substantial public interest at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and for this the Bench hearing the matter shall ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the Public Interest Litigation - prima facie consideration for furnishing such detail, the genuineness of public harm or public injury as also issue of personal gain or oblique motive is required to be seen. This Court, therefore, is of the view that even if there is criteria under rule 4 or 5 of the Rules, 2010, and the same has not strictly been followed but if there is prima facie material available indicating genuine public interest, the writ petitions should not and cannot be thrown away. The petitioner can be ousted but not be genuine issues raising the public cause. Doing that will frustrate the cause of justice - The provisions contained in the Rules 6-A and 9 goes to show that it has been carved out as exception to the earlier part of the Rules, i.e., notwithstanding to the provisions contained in Rule, 3, 4, 4-A, 4-B. Thus, the provisions under Rule 3, 4, 4-A and 4-B etc. have to be treated to be directory as it cannot come in the way of exercise of power under Article 226 as per Rule 9. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the allegation of mala fide merely because father of writ petitioner was a witness in a criminal case in which he was convicted, however, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court were reversed by the High Court, which was finally affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not sustainable. Herein, allegation as per the pleadings available on record is serious in nature, i.e. investment of ill-gotten money through various sources, which is allowed to be laundered at the cost of society jeopardizing interest of the people at large - the issue pertaining to approaching this Court without exhausting the remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not worth to be considered. This Court, after having answered the issue, as framed by this Court, and on the basis of discussions made, is summing up its view and is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions cannot be thrown away on the ground of maintainability. Petition admitted - To be heard on merit. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).2. Compliance with Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010.3. Alleged mala fide intentions behind filing the PIL.4. Exhaustion of alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure.5. Effect of surrendering the mining lease by the Chief Minister.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL):The court examined whether the PILs were maintainable despite objections regarding the petitioner's credentials, alleged mala fide intentions, and the non-exhaustion of alternative remedies. The court emphasized that PILs should not be dismissed on technical grounds if they involve substantial public interest and genuine public harm or injury. The court concluded that the issues raised in the PILs, such as the alleged siphoning of public money and misuse of office by high-ranking officials, warranted judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the PILs were deemed maintainable.2. Compliance with Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010:The respondents argued that the petitioner did not comply with Rule 4, 4-A, 4-B, and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, which require the petitioner to disclose full credentials and previous efforts made to obtain the relief sought. The court noted that while the petitioner did provide some credentials and information, the procedural requirements should not overshadow the substantive issues raised in the PILs. The court held that procedural rules are intended to advance justice and should not be used to defeat genuine public interest claims. Thus, the non-compliance with procedural rules did not render the PILs non-maintainable.3. Alleged mala fide intentions behind filing the PIL:The respondents contended that the PILs were filed with mala fide intentions, citing the petitioner's father's involvement as a witness in a criminal case against the father of one of the respondents. The court rejected this argument, stating that even if the petitioner's father was a witness in a past case, it did not preclude the petitioner from exercising his fundamental rights to file a PIL. The court emphasized that the allegations in the PILs were serious and involved public interest, such as the misuse of public funds and office. Therefore, the court found no merit in the argument that the PILs were filed with mala fide intentions.4. Exhaustion of alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure:The respondents argued that the petitioner should have exhausted alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as filing a complaint under Sections 154, 154(3), and 156(3). The court noted that the relief sought in the PILs, such as an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), could not be granted by a magistrate under Section 156(3). The court held that the petitioner was justified in approaching the High Court directly for such relief. Thus, the court rejected the argument that the PILs were non-maintainable due to the non-exhaustion of alternative remedies.5. Effect of surrendering the mining lease by the Chief Minister:One of the respondents argued that since the Chief Minister had already surrendered the mining lease, there was no need to continue the proceedings. The court held that the surrender of the lease did not negate the need for judicial scrutiny of the allegations of misuse of office and public funds. The court emphasized that the substantive issues raised in the PILs needed to be addressed, regardless of the surrender of the lease. Therefore, the court found no merit in the argument that the PILs should be dismissed on this ground.Conclusion:The court concluded that the PILs were maintainable and warranted judicial scrutiny. The court emphasized that procedural rules should not defeat substantive justice, especially when serious allegations involving public interest are raised. The court directed that the matters be heard on their merits.