The Calcutta High Court imposed Rs 10,000 cost on a petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed questioning the appointment of a private respondent on the ground that she was issued the OBC certificate and she obtained the appointment on the basis of false scheduled caste certificate.
The counsel for respondent has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition by submitting that a PIL in service matter cannot be entertained.
The counsel for the private respondent has also questioned the bona fides of the petition by submitting that the petitioner is the uncle of the private respondent and he has filed the petition as a counterblast to the ongoing dispute between the parties.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that the petitioner is closely related to private respondent being her uncle but this fact has been suppressed in the PIL. Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondent also revealed the said respondent and her family members had filed application under Section 144(2) of CrPC as petitioner and his wife had intended to evict the respondent and her family members.
It is also disclosed in the affidavit-in opposition that on 04.07.2022, the wife of the petitioner had issued a legal notice to the private respondent and family members through her advocate to vacate the residential premises.
The affidavit also discloses that the electricity connection in the house of private respondent was disconnected at the instance of the wife of the petitioner. It is also disclosed that the father of the private respondent had also filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, North 24 Parganas seeking maintenance of peace and tranquility and restoration of electricity connection.
Though affidavit-in-reply in response to the affidavit has been filed by the petitioner but none of these facts have been disputed therein. On the contrary, a plea has been raised by the petitioner that the relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent does not come in the way of the petition.
From the facts disclosed above, the Court noted the PIL has been filed with oblique motive and it cannot be treated as a bona fide petition. That apart, there is clear suppression of fact relating to the relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent.
It has also been pointed out that the OBC certificate earlier issued to private respondent was subsequently directed to be cancelled because after local inquiry it was found that the said certificate was inadvertently issued. The counsel for the private respondent informed the High Court the OBC certificate was cancelled.
“Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that this PIL filed for settling the private score is liable to be dismissed with costs. Hence, we dismiss the present petition with costs Rs 10,000 which will be deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, West Bengal Legal Services Authority within 2 weeks from today,” the Court ordered.
Further, the Bench clarified the order will not be treated as an order adjudication of issuance of legality and validity of caste certificate of private respondent.