STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Every meritless petition for special leave commits a double sin and here we are scandalized that the sinner is the State itself. When thousands of humble litigants are waiting in the queue hungry for justice and the docket-logged court is desparately wading through the rising flood, every 'lawless' cause brought recklessly before it is a dubious gamble which blocks the better ones from getting speedy remedy. Here is an instance.

(2.) If - this is a big 'if' - I assume some of the uncontradicted statements in the counter - affidavit and writ petition to be true, read in the light of the High Court's decision against the Government twice over that its action was mala fide and void, this disturbing petition, by the State of Punjab for leave to appeal, which I now dismiss, lays bare the basics of power pathology and judicial philosophy in the unhappy setting of personal vendetta fuelling the politics of compulsory land acquisition. Prof. Miller's assertion that the Supreme Court "acting as 'national conscience of the ......people' does mandate 'standards towards which public and private behaviour is as true in our jurisdiction as in his country'."

(3.) The factual matrix, enough to unfold why the High Court twice condemned the State's action in a case of land acquisition as mala fide and why we endorse so that view, must be stated. The order under appeal is brief but there is more than meets the credulous eye beneath the verbal suface available in the affidavits. The vice of misuse of power centred round one Sri Satnam Singh Bajwa, 22nd respondent, a former mimister, a quondam M.L.A., and a continuous politician. The 'writ-petitioners' (respondents 1 to 21 before us) seek to crucify him as the malefic presence prodding the impugned acquisition. Since he did not enter appearance, despite service of notice, we felt that a fresh opportunity or reminder should be afforded to him to deny,if he so desired, the sinister imputations made against him. The benefit of presumption of good faith belongs to every man, until rebutted. Fresh notice was directed and effected to the extent feasible but he did not respond and we leave it at that. We proceeded to hear the case after a few adjournments.