ANIL N BUGDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions have been filed in public interest litigation making grievance against transferring Dr. Parwinder Singh Pasricha, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai (Respondent No. 5 in PIL No. 20 of 2004), and appointing Mr. A. N. Roy (Respondent No. 6 in PIL No. 20 of 2004), as Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in Public Interest Litigation No. 20 of 2004 is that he is a citizen of India and an Advocate by profession. He is thus vitally interested in good governance in the State of Maharashtra. He is also a taxpayer. He has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution contending therein that an illegal action has been taken by respondent-authorities in disturbing Dr. Pasricha by transferring him from the post, which he was holding as Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and by appointing Mr. A. N. Roy at his place. The said action, according to the petitioner, is illegal, unlawful, contrary to law, politically motivated and mala fide. The action, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) IT is stated by the petitioner that one Mr. R. S. Sharma was Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. He, however, retired from the said post on 31st October, 2003. The petitioner alleged that it was widely said and openly discussed and also reported in newspapers that the post of Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, is virtually auctioned and an Officer who is in a position to pay highest amount will be able to get the said post. He further alleged that it was said that at the time of appointment of Mr. Sharma, crores of rupees had been paid. The Government, therefore, took sufficient care and caution to appoint an honest, impartial and upright Commissioner of Police after the retirement of Mr. Sharma. It was all the more necessary in the light of the fact that image of police force in Maharashtra had been badly damaged after Telgis Stamp Scam. Respondent No. 5 was, therefore, selected by the Government. Moreover, he was the senior most Additional Director General of Police having sufficient tenure to go and was also an upright, honest and impartial officer. Accordingly, his appointment came to be made on 18th November, 2003 and he took charge of his new assignment on the next day i. e. on 19th November, 2003. The citizens of Mumbai as also of the State of Maharashtra wholeheartedly welcomed the appointment of Dr. Pasricha. Unfortunately, however, within a period of about two months, he was disturbed and was appointed as Director General of Police and was asked to take new assignment. The allegations of the petitioner is that it is merely an eye-wash and as Dr. Pasricha did not oblige politicians and took several steps by transferring many police officials, the impugned action has been taken. The action is thus illegal, improper, arbitrary and it has been taken at the behest of politicians and the same deserves to be set aside. It was also contended that when Dr. Pasricha was appointed as the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, the respondent-authorities were well aware that a post of Director General of Police was likely to be vacant in near future whereon Dr. Pasricha could be appointed and yet he was appointed as Commissioner of Police. It was also contended by the petitioner that in past, many Police Commissioners were allowed to function as Commissioner of Police in spite of they being promoted to the post of Director General of Police. It was, therefore, not necessary to take impugned action of disturbing Dr. Pasricha and the said action has been taken with a view to punish him or to disapprove corrective measures taken by him.