1995 (7) TMI 78 - HC - Customs

Dismissed writ petition due to vague claims and lack of evidence, caution urged in filing PILs

The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's vague averments and lack of evidence of authorities failing in their duties. Emphasizing ... Writ Petition - Public interest litigation - Averments made by petitioner vague Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the petitioner.2. Validity of the representations sent by the petitioner to the authorities.3. Appropriateness of judicial intervention in ongoing investigations.4. Allegations of mala fide transfer of the Additional Collector of Customs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL):The petitioner, a member of the Bar, filed the writ petition as a public interest litigation seeking a thorough investigation into the alleged attempt to export Indian-made computer discs by respondents 7 and 8. The court scrutinized the intention behind the PIL and noted that the petitioner's grievance primarily concerned the transfer of the Additional Collector of Customs, the sixth respondent. The court emphasized that public interest litigation should be used with great care and circumspection, citing the Supreme Court's stance that PILs should not encroach upon the executive and legislative spheres. The court observed that many PILs are filed for personal publicity or individual benefits rather than genuine public grievances, referencing the Supreme Court's guidelines in State of H.P. v. Parent Medical College, Shimla (AIR 1985 SC 910) and Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. (AIR 1987 SC 1109).2. Validity of the Representations Sent by the Petitioner:The petitioner claimed to have sent representations to the authorities on 13-6-1995, 21-6-1995, and 24-6-1995. However, the court found inconsistencies in the petitioner's statements, noting that the report which formed the basis of the representations was dated 14-6-1995, making the representation dated 13-6-1995 baseless. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide a list of recipients or acknowledgments to prove that the representations were received by the concerned authorities. The court concluded that in the absence of evidence showing that the respondents were served with the representations, it was difficult to presume non-action by the respondents.3. Appropriateness of Judicial Intervention in Ongoing Investigations:The court highlighted that the petitioner did not assert that no action had been taken regarding the consignment but rather sought a detailed enquiry. The court underscored the principle that judicial interference in ongoing investigations is generally unwarranted, as established in State of W.B. v. Sampat Lal (AIR 1985 SC 195) and State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna (1980) 2 SCR 16. The court reiterated that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary but distinct, and judicial intervention should be reserved for instances of gross violation of rights or failure of statutory duties by the authorities.4. Allegations of Mala Fide Transfer of the Additional Collector of Customs:The petitioner's grievance included the transfer of the Additional Collector of Customs, whom he believed was transferred due to his refusal to drop the investigation into the alleged export attempt. The court noted that if the sixth respondent was aggrieved by the transfer, it was up to him to challenge the order on grounds of mala fides. The petitioner, acting as a mouthpiece for the officer, was deemed inappropriate. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have waited for the completion of the investigation before filing the writ petition, as premature petitions could interfere with ongoing investigations.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that it was not maintainable due to vagueness in the petitioner's averments and the lack of evidence showing that the authorities had failed to discharge their statutory duties. The court reiterated the need for restraint in filing PILs and emphasized that judicial intervention in ongoing investigations should be minimal to avoid misinterpretation by the authorities.