KIPA BABU Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition brought in the name of Public Interest Litigation, filed on 9th September, 1996 by President of Nishing Students' Union, Dafla Students Federation of Arunachal Pradesh claimed to be working for the welfare of the students community and for the welfare of the people in general of Arunachal Pradesh, pray for issuance of a writ of quo warranto mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to (i) disclose their known source of income alongwith the assets and liabilities within and outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh, (ii) produce the entire records of the power department including the findings of the Cabinet Sub Committee and its report dated 2.4.96 in respect of the power deal by the Power Department during the financial years ! 992-93,1993-94 and 1994-95 (iii) cause a judicial enquiry suo moto by this Hon'ble Court to unearth the misdeeds of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Power Department into the alleged scam and squandering away Rs, 124 crore of the State exchequer by Shri Gegang Apang, the Chief Minister as well as Minister-in-Charge Power etc. and (iv) direct the CBI to probe into the power scam and to submit its report within a stipulated time before this Court.

(2.) The role of PIL is recent one and still fledgling institutional innovation. There are many facets to the public interest which is why it has been difficult to arrive at a consensus definition. The conceptual perspective of public interest is complex. While the term "public interest" has been used in many contexts though the decades no consensus as such has yet been arrived at, even in an approximate sense as to what it really means.

(3.) This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed primarily with the object of exposing the Chief Minister of the State, respondent No. 5 in respect of his alleged misdeeds of corruption, favouritism, nepotism and amassing huge wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. Respondent No. 6 is his wife, respondent No. 7 is his son. The writ petitioner in paragraph 6 which runs into almost 15/16 pages has enumerated the alleged acts of favouritism, nepotism and corruption. Respondents 5,6 and 7 have explained and/or denied the allegations made against them.