K. SUBRAMANYAM SASTRY Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed as a public interest litigation with a prayer to direct respondent No.2 to probe into the illegally exported iron-ore in collusion with mining mafia to the tune of Rs.118 crores by one Mr.V.R.S.Natarajan, CMD of M/s.BEML Limited, Bangalore and others, in the financial year 2007-2008, through M/s.BEML Limited, Bangalore, without any authority under law and valid legal papers. It is further stated in the petition itself that the petitioner is a shareholder of M/s.BEML Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Hon ble President of India holding more than 54% of equity shares of that Company is stated to be a shareholder investing public money. The petition is stated to have been filed without having any type of personal interest. Originally, the petitioner has joined as respondents, Union of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, with the prayer to direct respondent No.2 to register a regular case/FIR against the offenders, including Board of Directors and shareholders of M/s.Champion Textiles Limited, Bangalore and also to direct respondent No.2 to periodically report the action taken. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has joined and furnished the details of respondent Nos.1 to 34.

(2.) Respondent Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 26 have submitted their statement of objections with the preliminary submission to the effect that the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine and that it is not maintainable against any of the respondents. The other objections as far as they are relevant for the present purpose are as under:-

(3.) The above statement of objections is verified by an affidavit dated 22.05.2012 and thereafter no rejoinder is filed on the record. In view of the undisputed facts about the litigations initiated by the petitioner against the same Company on different occasions and for different reliefs, it can be safely concluded that the petition is inspired by personal motive of the petitioner and he has already filed a number of litigations, some of which have been proven to be frivolous and vexatious. Upon a specific query with regard to the credentials and record of social service of the petitioner, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not have any other record of taking up any cause by way of public interest litigation.