P N DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation seeking action against the respondent 4 for various alleged acts of omissions, commissions and also misdeeds of corruption while he was acting as a public servant and also to disqualify him as a member of the Rajya Sabha.

(2.) The petitioner is a practising lawyer in the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. He claims that he has no political leaning but he ardently believes in condemnation of nepotism, corruption, profiteering, exploitation of helpless citizens and misuse of public money. According to him, of late there has been marked fall in moral values, increase in corruption and misuse of power by the public servants and politicians. The respondent 4 Shri Ajit Jogi was an I.A.S. Officer and has served as Collector, Sidhi, in the year 1977-78 and he came in contact with Shri Arjun Singh who later became the Chief Minister of the State. Shri Jogi helped in matters of loan recoveries and tax collections. Thereafter, he was posted as Collector, Raipur, where he was involved in rupees one crore scandal in Kodar Dam Land Compensation Case as mentioned in article in the weekly 'Current' dt. 2-1-1988 under the caption "Jogi let off the hook". The State instead of prosecuting him prosecuted certain officers in the lower rank in Special Criminal Case Nos. 29 to 42 of 1987 under Prevention of Corruption Act which are pending before Special Judge, Raipur. Therefore, the original records of the criminal cases be requisitioned and necessary action be taken. Thereafter the respondent 4 got coveted posting as Collector, Indore, and he was involved in Palm Oil Scandal where lacs and lacs of public money had been diverted to his personal benefit. The respondent 4 has acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and of his wife Smt. Renu Jogi. The Economic Offence wing of the Special Police Establishment in the State launched an investigation against the respondent 4 under Prevention of Corruption Act but the responsible police officers are hesitating for taking action against him. This finds support from news item published in Dainik Bhaskar dt. 16-1-1987 mentioning that 45 I.A.S. Officers of the State have become Karodpatis. One Virendra Pandit, a journalist with U.N.I. at Bhopal unearthed the facts about Palm Oil Scandal which he wrote in the Free Press Journal. Shri Jogi became a favourite of Shri Arjun Singh who secured for him Rajya Sabha ticket of the ruling party and subsequently got him elected. The irregularities of misappropriation and wastage of public money cannot be curbed unless a very deterrent action is taken against the respondent 4. The Court should, therefore, summon the complete records of the scandals and direct the State and the Union of India to conduct high level enquiry of the whole affair and bring the culprit to book. Despite criminal lapses on the part of respondent No.4, he wilfully resigned and got himself elected to Rajya Sabha. In fact, the acceptance of his resignation was illegal in view of pendency of criminal cases against him. The petitioner has no personal ill-will or malice against any one but wants clean administration and eradication of corruption and misuse of powers by the authorities. The petitioner, therefore, prays; (i) that the investigation in Palm Oil Scandal case be completed and challan be filed under S.5(1)(e) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Court against the respondent 4; (ii) on perusal of the records of special criminal cases pending in the Court of Special Judge, Raipur, challan be directed to be filed against the respondent 4; (iii) acceptance of resignation of respondent No.4 be quashed as illegal and (iv) the respondents 5 and 6 viz. Chairman, Rajya Sabha and the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, be directed to dismember the respondent 4 from being member of the Rajya Sabha. The petition is supported by affidavit of the petitioner disclosing derivation of information from the sources of mass media as appeared in various newspapers.

(3.) The respondents 2 and 3 viz. the State of M.P. and its Secretary, in their return submitted that the petitioner is a mere busy body or meddlesome interloper. He is acting either for personal gain or private profit or from political motivation or other oblique consideration. The petitioner appears to bear political personal vendetta against the respondent No. 4 and Shri Arjun Singh who was then Union Minister for Communications. The allegations in the petition are wild, baseless and bereft of details. The petition is based on newspaper report and no cogent material has been placed on record. After due investigation in Kodar Dam Land Compensation case, challans have been filed only against those persons who have been found guilty and they are being prosecuted in Special Criminal Case Nos. 29 to 42 of 1987 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Raipur. The petitioner wants this Court to act as investigation agency or as a vigilance commission and to abdicate its judicial function. No writ of quo warranto lies against respondent No. 4, he being a member of Rajya Sabha and is not holding any office under Central or State Government. It is clear that the real intention of the petitioner is to demand a fishing or roving enquiry by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition as framed is, therefore, not maintainable. Article 103 of the Constitution provides that the matter of disqualification of a Member of Parliament can be decided by the President of India in accordance with the opinion of the Election Commission if he has become subject to any disqualification mentioned in Cl.(1) of Art.102. No such direction can be given to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The acts alleged to have been committed were in the year 1981 and 1984-85 by the respondent 4 while working as a public servant in the State of M.P., while the petition has been filed in the year 1988 and suffers from delay and laches. The acceptance of resignation of the respondent 4 is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of India and the same cannot be challenged in this petition. The affidavit filed by the petitioner is defective and, therefore, the allegations in the petition need no enquiry. The petitioner has made bundle of prayers by which reliefs are sought under various, enactments. There are authorities under various acts before whom relief can be sought by the petitioner on the basis of allegations -in the petition. If anybody has accumulated assets disproportionate to his income, then there are authorities under various acts to be approached for that purpose and writ is not the appropriate remedy. Mala fides of the petitioner are clear by mentioning the name of wife of respondent 4 and also Shri Arjun Singh who have nothing to do with the various acts and omissions alleged against the respondent 4. In the Constitution itself, there are checks and balances and remedies under various enactments. It is absolutely false that during the tenure of the respondent 4 as Collector, Sidhi, he helped Shri Arjun Singh in matters of loan recoveries and tax collection. The articles published in newspapers are the views of their authors and sometimes written on the basis of partisan view of the matter and they cannot form basis of petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is a common practice these days that in the name of public interest litigation, people try to malign the image and reputation of politicians and public figures. The petition has been filed at the behest of disgruntled politicians who were unhappy at respondent 4, being given a ruling party ticket for Rajya Sabha and when got him elected. In the Criminal Procedure Code there are various provisions for proceeding against a person found guilty though not named as an accused. This Court while hearing a petition under Art.226 cannot assume the powers of a Special Judge. The petitioner has to make out a case and then ask for appropriate writ in the circumstances of the case and not invite the jurisdiction of this Court to go into the records and make out a case for petitioner for granting him relief. The State Government always takes note of any scandal, what to say of Palm Oil Scandal, and takes action only when there is sufficient material, otherwise no civil servant will ever be able to function fearlessly and independently. The petitioner wants to convert the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 into a political platform so that he can malign the respondent No. 4 and Shri Arjun Singh.