C K SALEEM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by a person who is said to be a public spirited citizen. He is aggrieved by Ext. P4 Government order dated 17-12-2003 by which the Government of Kerala have put the third respondent Commercial Manager of the Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. in full additional charge of the Managing director of the Corporation until further orders. Complaint of the petitioner is that the said order was passed by the Government brushing aside various proceeding pending against third respondent. Reference was made to Ext. P1 vigilance enquiry report dated 30-11-2001 and Ext. P2 letter issued by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption bureau to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Vigilance Department. Petitioner also made reference to Ext. P3 letter dated 14-11-03 issued by the Managing Director, Kerala State Bamboo Corporation Ltd. to third respondent intimating him that an Advocate Enquiry Officer has been appointed to conduct a detailed domestic enquiry against the third respondent.

(2.) EXT. P1 enquiry report refers two charges which reads as follows: 1. The S. O. did not have M. B. A. qualification prescribed for the post holding now and produced bogus experience certificate from Bennet Coleman and Company. 2. The S. O. amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The enquiry officer ultimately concluded as follows: "the qualification prescribed for the post of Commercial manager was M. B. A. and no equivalent qualification was prescribed. S. O. has only M. M. S. degree qualification. Hence the first part of first allegation that the S. O. did not have M. B. A. qualification is proved. Further S. O. did furnish false information in the bio-data by mentioning his qualification as M. B. A. instead of M. M. S. Necessary departmental action is to be initiated against the S. O. for furnishing false information and suppression of factual information. The second part of the first allegation that the S. O. had produced bogus experience certificate is absolutely baseless since the company concerned Bennet Coleman Ltd. has confirmed the genuineness of all documents produced by the S. O. With regard to the allegation that S. O. amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, it is found that S. O. and his family had acquired disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs. 64,389/- and paise 32, which is 4. 07% of the total income. Hence, the percentage of disproportionate asset acquired is quite marginal when compared with the income of the S. O. and his family. Enquiry so far did reveal that there is no scope for further detection of assets. The sources of certain income stated by the S. O. during the enquiry is not taken into account in the absence of genuine records or documents. Hence, there is no scope for registration of a Vigilance case. "

(3.) WE fail to see how and in what manner the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Government and the Corporation. Petitioner is said to be a public spirited citizen who has no connection whatsoever with the Bamboo Corporation. He was not an applicant for the post of commercial Manager. WE fail to know how the petitioner has obtained the copy of the vigilance enquiry report, the communication sent by the Director of vigilance to the Principal Secretary to the Government, the letter written by the Managing Director to the third respondent, the Government order dated 17-12-2003 issued to the third respondent etc. Evidently it might have been surreptitiously obtained from the office of the Corporation. WE may impress upon the persons like the petitioner that this court's jurisdiction would not be permitted to be abused to settle personal scores. The Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others, 1998 (7) SCC 273 held that if public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would be defeated. The court held in order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The above principle was followed by the Apex Courtin Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State ofW. B. (2004) 3 SCC 349. Apex Court reminded the duty of the courts. Court is meant for the forum for redressal only of genuine public wrong or public injury, not for the redressal of private, publicity-oriented or political disputes or other disputes not genuinely concerned with the public interest. Moreover, courts to be watchful that no one's character is besmirched, and that justifiable executive actions are not assailed for oblique motives. The court reminded serpentine queues of genuinely aggrieved litigants being denied access to courts due to the admission of so called public interest litigations resulting waste of precious judicial time on admission of undeserving public interest litigations.