I K JAGIRDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming to espouse the public interest. The petitioner contends that he is a tax payer; a journalist serving the cause of the public through journalism since last 30 years; he was a senior feature writer and investigative reporter for a leading Kannada daily newspaper "Prajavani"; he is an income-tax assessee; a member of the Karnataka Working Journalist Association and was the President of the Press Club, Bangalore, for three years from 1986-88 and at present he is the editor of Kannada fortnightly "Sanketa". As such he claims to have the locus standi to maintain this writ petition. The 2nd respondent was the former President of India, getting a monthly pension from the Central Government. He has got a palatial building at Anantpur in Andhra Pradesh; his sons are well placed and he has got properties and income much above the average income of Indian citizens. The State of Karnataka is in a financially critical position since for last five years; is unable to meet the basic needs of the residents of Karnataka. In spite of the difficult financial position prevailing in the State to the detriment of the people of Karnataka the first respondent has been spending lavishly for the benefit of the 2nd respondent which is neither necessary nor it serves any public cause. The petitioner further contends that there are several houseless people in the country including Karnataka. The 1st respondent has provided a palatial bungalow at prominent place at Bangalore to the 2nd respondent though he has got a house. The 1st respondent has incurred more than Rupees 54 lakhs for entertaining the 2nd respondent in the last 22 months as on the date of filing the petition by providing two cars with drivers, several servants including gardeners and providing security personnel. All this expenditure is made by the lst respondent on the second respondent at the cost of the people of Karnataka. The lst respondent in the cabinet meeting held on 20-11-1987 decided to provide a suitable well furnished government accommodation and a car with a driver for two to three years to the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner this decision was taken by the 1st respondent under an impression that the Government of India will bear the expenditure on this account. Even as per the said decision of the Cabinet the lst respondent could have incurred expenses only for providing a well furnished rent free accommodation and a car with a driver to the 2nd respondent for two to three years. But spending huge amount by the 1st respondent on the 2nd respondent in providing him servants, security personnel, gardener and by paying his light bills, water bills, telephone bills, security expenditure, petrol to the car and also bearing his travelling expenses to Delhi are not supported by any such Cabinet decision. The lst respondent being liable to account to the people of Karnataka for spending each paisa is liable to be directed to recover from the 2nd respondent the amount thus already spent on the 2nd respondent unauthorisedly and illegally. The 2nd respondent who had occupied the post of a President of India is legally and morally bound to reimburse the amount. On the basis of these averments the petitioner has raised the following grounds in the writ petition :- ( l ) The action of the lst respondent in providing and continuing the financial and other benefits to the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, illegal and against the interest of the general public; (2) The 2nd respondent being well placed is capable of maintaining himself and his family according to his status. Hence it is unnecessary for the 1st respondent to provide benefits to the 2nd respondent at the cost of the people of Karnataka; (3) The 1st respondent being not in a position to meet the basic demands of its people is liable to be restrained from providing such facilities to the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The writ petition was filed on 16-5-1990. This Court on 17-5-1990 issued rule and interim order.

(3.) IAs-I and II were filed by applicants in the said IAs to get them impleaded in the writ petition. IA-III was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the writ petition. This Court on 19-7-1990 allowed the applicants in IAs-I and II to assist the Court as intervenors and allowed IA-III filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the writ petition.