JAGRUTI VISHWAS KUMARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by officers and employees working in Integrated Tribal Development Project ("ITDP") of the State, who are said to have executed various schemes for tribal development during the period from 2004 to 2009. There were allegations of large scale corruption in implementation of these schemes, leading to denial of benefits of the schemes to their real beneficiaries. A public interest litigation was, in the premises, filed before this Court complaining inter alia of corruption and mis-appropriation of funds (PIL No.153 of 2012). This Court took cognizance of the matter and, as observed in its order dated 27 March 2014, directed the Respondent State to appoint an Inquiry Committee under the chairmanship of a retired judge of this Court. The State Government, accordingly, issued a G.R. appointing Shri M.G. Gaikwad, Retired Judge of Bombay High Court, as a Chairman of an Inquiry Committee along with four others. This Court was of the view that the grievances of the PIL Petitioners could be enquired into by this Committee, who would submit a report of its investigations to this Court. The Court clarified that the Committee would be empowered to exercise powers vested under Sections 4 and 11 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Considering that the Committee was looking into the matter and would address itself to the grievances of the Petitioners and suggest remedial measures, the petition was adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties to apply in case of any difficulty. In due course of time, whilst the PIL remained pending before this Court, Justice Gaikwad Committee made its report. The report was in six parts; it adverted to various incidents of mis- appropriation of funds and suggested various measures. In view of the report, the State Government issued a G.R. appointing another committee, called P.D. Karandikar Committee, for fixing charges and guiding the State Government in the matter of further action. Karandikar Committee made its recommendations, pursuant to which, various police complaints were filed by the Tribal Development Department. These complaints resulted into registration of about 139 FIRs in various parts of Maharashtra. The PIL Court, from time to time, took note of various steps taken by the State Government in pursuance of the reports and recommendations of both Justice Gaikwad Committee and Karandikar Committee. The Court inter alia directed the State Government to file an affidavit of its Principal Secretary concerning filing of criminal cases, progress of departmental inquiries, action taken in recovery, etc. (Order dated 9 December 2019). The Court also directed the Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, to remain personally present and offer an explanation for the steps taken pursuant to the committee reports (order dated 8 January 2020). These two orders were subject matter of challenge by the present Writ Petitioners in a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, by its order dated 17 January 2020, permitted the Petitioners to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to approach this Court "to raise all the contentions before the concerned Bench which is hearing the matter". The Petitioners claim to have moved this Court in pursuance of that liberty.

(2.) It is at once clear from the facts of the case, some of which have been narrated above, that the subject matter of the present writ petition has a definite overlap with the pending PIL. After all, the thrust of the Petitioners' case in the present petition is that they have not committed any fraud or mis-appropriation or acts of misfeasance and that the steps taken by the State Government in the matter, including the original G.R. appointing Justice Gaikwad Committee and all follow-up actions resulting from that report, are illegal and ought to be quashed and set aside. Whether the Petitioners, as officers or employees of the State, were guilty of any fraud or mis-appropriation, is clearly a subject matter of the pending PIL. It is, in fact, the defence of these Petitioners to the PIL that they were not. No doubt, steps taken by the State Government in individual matters of complaint, which have resulted into FIRs noted above, are a fall-out of what happened in the PIL Court. Individual challenge to any particular FIR filed as a result of what happened before the PIL Court, may not strictly form the subject matter of the PIL, but an omnibus challenge such as this, which goes to the root of the matter and questions the very foundation of the State Government's action in the matter, including the very first G.R. appointing Justice Gaikwad Committee, could certainly not be entertained parallely with the PIL Court, which is already seized of the matter and which is considering the allegations of corruption and serious irregularities in the matter of implementation of ITDP schemes. We are, therefore, of the view that this writ petition should ideally be heard by the same Division Bench, which is hearing the PIL, whether clubbed with the PIL or separately from it.

(3.) We, therefore, direct the Registry to place this writ petition before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing it before the appropriate Division Bench hearing the pending PIL (PIL No.153 of 2012).