NARESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation has been instituted by three Advocates of this Court with the supporting affidavit that whatever statements they have made by way of this writ petition are true to their personal knowledge. However, on enquiry, we have come to know that they have taken informations from others but they have no personal knowledge with regard to such informations. However, at the initial stage, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petitioners has contended before us that the petitioners have made an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain informations and in the absence thereof, they will not be in a position to establish their case, therefore, as and when such informations will be received, the same will be filed by way of supplementary affidavit. Presently, they have no source of information other than the source of newspaper cuttings and electronic media. He has further frankly confessed, out of his fairness, that railway administration has not been made party in the writ petition. However, learned Counsel has contended before us that the issue is sensational one and the entire country has observed the nature of rally and the expenses incurred on the President of the Ruling Party and the present Chief Minister. We have been told that so far as the rally part is concerned, a writ petition is pending, however, emphasis has been given in regard to misuse of public money in that form. Learned Counsel wanted to explain the question in regard to the manner the rally was organised. In any event, it appears to us that the core issue is with regard to mis-utilization of public money in the rally. On enquiry, we have come to know that the rally was conducted on a declared holiday. He has cited a Supreme Court judgment before us Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 163 to establish that direction for investigation with regard to acquisition of assets disproportionate to known source of income by the respondents, Chief Minister and family members and for appropriate action to prosecute the respondents under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be issued straightaway without any investigation by an independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation.

(2.) According to us, in that case prima facie case of disproportionate assets was established. In that judgment, we also find a very important paragraph relating to maintainability of the public interest litigation, i.e. paragraph 39, which is quoted below:

(3.) Therefore, failure of public duty will be tested on the materials. Here the case is misuse of public fund. Even if it is similarly placed, some materials are required to establish the case. Petitioners' own case is that they are yet to get materials under Right to Information Act and necessary application is made. Therefore, both the cases are not similarly placed.