B KRISHNA BHAT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-B. Krishna Bhat claiming to be senior citizen and an agriculturist by profession and a tax-payer alleges that he has filed several writ petitions involving issues of public importance. It is stated that by reading an article, Annexure-C appeared in Deccan Herald in its issue dated 29-12-2002 under the caption "krishna Clears Legislators asian Jaunt" and as the Chief Minister has cleared about 290 Legislators to go abroad on Government exchequer, has filed this Public Interest litigation petition on 30-1-2003.

(2.) THIS Court on 6-2-2003 directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice and to file returns by 14-2-2003 and the matter to be listed on 17-2-2003. The learned Government Advocate could not satisfy the Court that the so-called visit abroad is for the betterment of the administration and in the welfare of the State nor any reply was filed. On the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that despite notice 29 Legislators have left for foreign tour on 11-2-2003 and others were likely to go, if no interim order restraining them to visit abroad is granted, this Court considering the respective arguments of the parties, while observing that anybody can visit abroad, restrained the persons undertaking a visit abroad for study tour as per the scheme, if any, on the expenses of the State till 10th March, 2003 as per the order dated 17-2 2003. The matter was placed on 24-2-2003 and subsequently it has come up today.

(3.) IN response to the notice, the respondent-State has filed its counter on 21-2-2003 denying the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that merely on the basis of the newspaper report dated 29-12-2002, without verifying the fact, the petitioner has filed this petition that too after one month of the publication and the same is not maintainable. It is also stated that no material particulars are made in the writ petition, rather the petitioner has misrepresented the facts before this Court that sanction has been granted and a group of 29 Legislators have already left for visit abroad, which is totally false, and on the basis of false averments made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the interim order was granted. After obtaining the interim order the petitioner has given wide publicity in the print and electronic media with an oblique motive referring to some facts which have no nexus or relevance to the issues involved in the above petition. The petitioner, without making any investigation or study with regard to the real facts has filed this petition only for publicity. On merits it is stated that various Committees have been constituted after assessing and evaluating in an objective manner that the Committees can visit several States to apprise themselves of the factual aspects including field knowledge and experience of their counterpart/sister concerns Such tours are part of their official functions and are permissible. It is also stated that if any Legislator or group of Legislators intend to go abroad for any such further study, it is not at the behest or sponsorship of the Legislature and such tours are considered as private tours or individual visits. The learned Government advocate submits that the object of the petitioner is nothing but to interfere with the legitimate right of the Legislators and to diminish the image of the representatives of the people in the eye of public. He has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in S. P. Anand, Indore v h. D. Deve Gowda and Others and BALCO Employees' Union (Registered)v Union of India and Others.