B K DUBEY Vs. LOKAYUKT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a public interest litigation whereby the petitioner has sought for a issue of mandamus directing the Special Police Establishment, M. P. , to register a criminal case against the respondent No. 3- Dr. Vijay Kumar, IPS, and to investigate into the offences as mentioned in the writ petition. It is also prayed that the respondent No. 3 be removed from Police Establishment, M. P. It is also prayed that the respondent No. 4/state be directed to get investigations conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation/income Tax Department into the assets and properties of the Police Officers posted in the Special Police Establishment.

(2.) IT is most unfortunate that the petitioner, who himself was Chief Secretary of this State, has resorted to this public interest litigation levelling allegations against the respondent No. 3, who is working as a Superintendent of Police (Special Police Establishment) Lokayukt Karayalaya, Bhopal. The Lokayukt Organisation is headed by the Hon'ble Shri Faizanuddin a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. The respondent No. 3 is working as an officer there. It is alleged that certain allegations were made against the respondent No. 3 and an enquiry was initiated against him some time back. It is alleged that since the respondent No. 3, being guilty of omission and commission, has been charge-sheeted he should not be allowed to continue in the Special Police Establishment of M. P. ('spe' in short ).

(3.) THIS petition, prima facie, does not appear to be bona fide. After issue of notice, a wide publicity by this petitioner was made in various national presses levelling allegations against the Lokayukt institution and news item were published in the Indian Express, Times of India and various news papers with bold head lines which we do not intend to reproduce in this order. But we express our great concern in the manner the publicity has been given to this petition. This kind of publicity is highly undesirable and speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioner himself. The press should have taken a proper care not to have given a publicity before the matter was adjudicated. Time and again, this Court as well as the Apex Court have observed that this kind of media trial should not be allowed to be permitted. Because of issuance of process by the Court, the media got a news item and published it in a different manner when the matter awaited to be decided in this Court. This kind of publicity by the Press against the institution and the respondents in this manner was highly undesirable. In this context we may refer to the decision rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386, wherein it has been laid down as under :