Naresh Chandra Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):

“ 10.1 This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to call for entire records with respect to subject matter of this petition from respondents.

10.2 This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to direct respondents for registration of FIR and carry out investigation on the basis of statutory information provided by Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate.

10.3 This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for Court monitored investigation by an constituting a Special Investigation team or by the independent agency like Centrla Bureau of Investigation.

10.4 This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to direct for taking action against Respondents No.1 to 5 for wilfull disobedience of direction issued by Consitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumar v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.

10.5. This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue or pass any other writ, direction, or order that his Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances.

10.6 Costs of the Petition may also be awarded.”

Mr. Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate since 1987 and has been mainly practicing as Tax Counsel. He has been the President of Income Tax Bar Association, Raipur and Indirect Tax Practitioiners Association of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner is also engaged in activities relating to public interest. The petitioner has held the following posts in his social life:

·         Executive Council Member of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur.

·         Vice President of Chhattisgarh State Child Welfare Society

·         President, Chhattisgarh Vikas Vichar Manch since the year 2000 till date

·         Secretary, Rashtriya Vidhayalaya Samiti, Raipur 2012-2018

·         Governing Body member of Durga Mahavidyalaya, Raipur.

·         Governing Body member of Gurukul Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Raipur.

·         Ex-Governing Body of Member of Sau Kusum Tai Dabke Law College, Raipur (2010-2014)

·         President of City Junior Chamber, Raipur (1994-95) Executive Member of Bal Ashram Raipur.

·         Member Bhatkhande Lalit Kala Shikshan Samiti, Raipur.

·         Member, Chhattisgarh Rice Exporter Association, since 2002.

·         In addition to the above, the petitioner is:

·         An active member of Bharatiya Janta Party and BJP Chhattisgarh State Office Bearer as BJP State Office Incharge.

·         National Executive Member of BJP Executive Legislative Cell.

·         Ex Member of Chhattisgarh State Finance Commission and designated as Minister of State from 2015-2018.

·         Ex Member State Pollution and Environment Conservation Board 2010-13.

·         Ex Member of the Chhattisgarh Saksharta Mission 2008-2010. Ex Member of Telephone Advisory Committee.

Mr. Khare would further submit that the respondent authorities have not registered FIR against the high-ranked bureaucrats, who are involved in the cases of corruption despite disclosure of the respondent No.6 & 7 to the respondent authorities that the high ranking officers namely Anil Tuteja, Saumya Chaurasia, Vivek Dhand and Sameer Vishnoi have committed cognizable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and 1988 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would object the locus standi of the petitioner for filing this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and contended that it was filed by him with an oblique motive to vindicate his personal grievances which is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner is active member of political party (BJP) and office bearer as BJP State Office Incharge. Therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Gurmet Singh Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2021 (5) ADJ 409, noticing the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation.

The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Supreme Court Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the three stages of a PIL which has been discussed above. The Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under:

“143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.”

The Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under:

“12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters —government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder was challenged. The Court held that the scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. The court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.

The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present PIL for the reliefs claimed therein as it appears that for oblique motive, the present PIL has been filed by the petitioner who being in a legal profession is well aware of the remedies available to him for approaching the appropriate Court/forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.

The petitioner has also failed to establish his locus standi to file this PIL as he not only being an Advocate, is also an active member of political party. This petition appears to be for oblique purpose best known to the petitioner as neither the Income Tax Department, Central Bureau of Investigation nor the Directorate of Enforcement has come forward to challenge the alleged inaction on the part of the State to take action against the delinquent officials.

In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance as raised in this petition.

The instant PIL is, accordingly, dismissed.