The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed raising the issues regarding illegal activities done by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar/Respondent No.6.
According to him, Respondent No.6 has done illegal acts in the last 4 years. His such acts have caused a huge loss to the exchequer of the Municipal Corporation as well as the State Government. No departmental enquiry is initiated against him and instead of punishing him, he has been rewarded with promotion. He is hands in gloves with the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. He caters to the needs of politically influential people. The memo of the petition contains several such allegations, though bereft of substantiation.
The Aurangabad Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Y. G. Khobragade noted that the petitioner has not disclosed his source of income. No details of his income are set out.
By this petition, the Petitioner desires that the Court should issue notice and direct an inquiry in the day to day service performed by Respondent No.6 and at the same time initiate criminal action against him if he is found guilty in any such departmental enquiry.
The Supreme Court has cautioned against entertaining PIL petitions in service matters. In Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal [(2004) 3 SCC 349], the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that a roving enquiry in the backdrop of inadequate information is impermissible and imposition of exemplary costs on failure to meet the requisite criteria, would be appropriate. In paragraph No.16, it was held that it was shocking to note that Courts are flooded with a large number of so-called PILs. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out and as is held in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, PIL in service matters should not be entertained. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. B. Singh Versus Union of India and others [(2004) 3 SCC 363].
In Gurpal Singh Versus State of Punjab and Others [(2005) 5 SCC 136], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the Court should be careful and circumspect and should reject, at the outset, such petitions especially involving service matters, which in the guise of PIL are really intended to settle personal scores or to gain cheap popularity. Exemplary costs should be imposed on the petitioner.
In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [(2005) 1 SCC 590], the Supreme Court held that the PILs’ should be admitted with great care. The duty of the Courts is towards redressal only of genuine public wrongs and not for redressal of private publicity oriented or political disputes, which are not genuinely concerned with public interest.
The Court has also perused the report of the learned Registrar (Judicial) which indicates that this petition lacks a wider object in public interest. We also find that the petitioner desires that Respondent No.6 be subjected to a departmental enquiry and an action be taken against him.
“We find that this petition has a taint of personal grudge or grievance. In view of the above, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this petition as a public interest litigation petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed”, the order reads.