DILIP KARAMBELKAR Vs. VISHNU BHAGWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that at present he is Editor, Printer and Publisher of Daily Mumbai "tarun Bharat" and Managing Editor, Printer and Publisher of "vivek Weekly". This petition is filed in public interest and he has prayed as under:-

(2.) THE entire petition is founded on writ petition No. 2757 of 1990 filed by respondent No. 1 for deleting the adverse Confidential Reports communicated to him. It is submitted that in the said writ petition respondent No. 1 had made serious allegations against the senior and Superior Naval Officers, the then Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and other Senior Officials of the Central Government, Defence Ministry, Home Ministry and against the then Honourable Prime Minister, who was also holding charge of Defence Ministry and these complaints and allegations are more grave and serious than complaints made by Shri Lakhubhai Pathak, which is under active examination of Delhi High Court as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is, therefore, submitted that for the safety, security and integrity of the Nation the investigation may be carried out on the basis of the allegations made in the said writ petition filed by respondent No. 1.

(3.) THE learned. Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submitted that this petition is not a public interest litigation, but is only filed to scandalize the administration and is for oblique motive. He pointed out that the aforesaid writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was withdrawn in April, 1991, At the relevant time the Court permitted the withdrawal of the said petition as the request for deleting the adverse remarks was allowed. He also submitted that the petitioner wants to re-open the said petition even by casting aspersions on the functioning of this court by stating that respondent No. 1 was erroneously permitted to withdraw the said petition. He has pointed out that the learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 at the relevant time moved an application that the matter be placed before the Division Bench consisting of Bharucha J. , (as he then was) and Savant, J. , on 16th April, 1991 along with an application for withdrawal of the petition. In that application it has been specifically mentioned that the Chief of Naval Staff by his communication dated 26th Dec. 1990 has informed the petitioner that the Government has directed that the relevant A. C. Rs. which are adverse should not be treated as adverse. In paragraph 2 of the Application it has been stated that the Chief of Naval Staff constituted a Committee comprising of the Vice Chief of Naval Staff and 3 Commanders-in-Chief of the Western Naval Command, Eastern Naval Command and Southern Naval Command to examine issues related to the writ petition, inter alia, relating to appointments, administrative censure and related issues and that Committee has submitted its findings and recommendations. It is also specifically mentioned that the Government/ Ministry of Defence is inquiring into other issues mentioned in the petition and has already initiated action in respect of some issues. On the basis of the said application, respondent No. 1 was permitted to withdraw the petition.