TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccording to the petitioner, on 05.07.2020, the Customs and Preventive Commissionerate had seized 30 Kgs of gold from a diplomatic cargo and on preliminary enquiry, the Customs found that the 6th respondent - Ms.Swapna Suresh, had played a major role in gold smuggling activities. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent had made various revelations in her statement regarding the involvement of several persons, based upon which, a show-cause notice dated 29.07.2021 was issued to six persons. Petitioner also alleges that even though the show-cause notice mentioned the involvement of persons holding constitutional posts in the State in the illegal export of foreign currency, using diplomats of the Consular General's Office, no serious investigation was conducted into the said allegation. Petitioner further alleges that in the statements of the 6th respondent and another person by name Sri.P.S.Sarith, they had detailed the involvement of Sri.P.Sreeramakrishnan, the then Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. According to the petitioner, despite these allegations and statements, no investigation was conducted by the Customs, especially into the allegations against Chief Minis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivate litigation. 8. Petitioner was allegedly the employer of Ms.Swapna Suresh (6th respondent), which is evident from Annexure R7(c). This fact has not been mentioned in the writ petition. Further, the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case in which he had approached this Court with a bail application wherein his connection with Ms. Swapna Suresh was mentioned. Since the petitioner failed to reveal his true identity and his connection with the sixth respondent in the writ petition, it is contended that the writ petition must be dismissed, as he had not come with clean hands. 9. On a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition, this Court could not identify any reference to the petitioner's identity or his connection with the 6th respondent. In the decision in State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma and Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541), it has been observed that the locus of the person who initiates litigation of public interest is of significance as this important form of litigation can be abused by motivated individuals. It was further observed that nondisclosure of the credentials of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs discredits such publ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. It was observed that "there can be no dispute that the manner in which evidence is got, namely, that it was procured in an illegal manner would not ordinarily be very significant in itself in regard to the court's decision to act upon the same." Thus failure to reveal the source from which a document was procured cannot be a reason for dismissing a writ petition as not maintainable. 14. Also, in Sakiri Vasu v State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [(2008) 2 SCC 409], the Supreme Court had held that the constitutional courts must discourage petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to monitor the investigation or to register a crime. However, the principle of availability of alternative remedies is a rule of discretion. In appropriate cases, this Court can, especially when public interest demands, decide to issue appropriate directions as the circumstances may warrant. The rule of discretion based on the principle of alternative remedy cannot be raised by respondents to throw out a lis at the threshold itself, especially in a case of this nature where allegations of far reaching consequences are made. Of course, the court can base its conclusion on the existence o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the remedies evolved by writ jurisdiction are of an extraordinary nature, and circumstances did not warrant issuance of directions sought for. 19. The aforesaid two cases relate to and include the very same issue in this lis. Revelations allegedly made by Ms.Swapna Suresh and Sri.P.S.Sarith are the basis of all the writ petitions. After considering the nature of the revelations, a Divison Bench of this Court dismissed both those writ petitions. 20. Petitioner claims practically the same relief as in the two writ petitions mentioned above. Those two writ petitions also sought relief of fair and impartial investigation into the allegations of gold smuggling and other scams by the different investigating agencies. Though the writ petitioner herein is different from the earlier writ petitions, that by itself is not a reason to entertain this writ petition or ignore the two Division Bench judgments of this Court. When a public cause is sought to be agitated by a person, and the same is rejected after detailed consideration, it is not open for another member of the public to agitate the very same issue merely by a change in the name of the petitioner. If another member of the public....