HIMMAT SINGH SHERGILL Vs. PARKASH SINGH BADAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed on the basis of certain newspaper reports which according to the petitioner would go to show that the transport policy of the State of Punjab has been manipulated by respondents No.1 and 2 so as to favour the private transport operators at the cost of the Public Ex-chequer. Respondents No.1 and 2, co-incidently, happen to be the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister of the State of Punjab.

(2.) The petitioner appearing in person contends that he has laid before the Court information and materials to show that the aforesaid respondents have interest in transport companies which own and operate luxury tourist buses for whom the law has been bent at the cost of the State owned vehicles. It is in the aforesaid broad factual situation that the writ petition in question has been filed seeking an "independent investigation by an agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation" which is not under the direct or indirect control of respondents No.1 and 2 or for such an investigation by a sitting or a retired High Court Judge. According to the petitioner, such investigation should be in respect of the information available in the news items published in the Tribune, details of which are available in the writ petition.

(3.) Having outlined the broad features of the writ petition and the relief sought we would like to put on record, at the very out set, that we find it difficult to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. If respondents No.1 and 2 have committed any wrong, while in office, which has injured the public Ex-chequer and has benefited their own interests, the petitioner should have taken recourse to the remedy available under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than approaching the Court by way of this Public Interest Litigation seeking directions for registration of a criminal case and investigation of the same. Admittedly, according to the petitioner, the acts of respondents No.1 and 2 complained of give rise to a criminal action inasmuch as the investigation of the same is the only relief sought for in the writ petition. If that be so, it is difficult to understand as to why the petitioner seeks directions from the Court without even approaching the concerned authorities under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a criminal act has been occasioned, the affected party or any interested party is expected to approach the Investigating Agency by filing a FIR instead of seeking orders from the Court by means of a Public Interest Litigation. The latter approach, without following the provisions of the Code, cannot be understood to be fair and bonafide action on the part of the complainant (writ petitioner) which fact would disentitle the petitioner to any relief at the hands of the Court. The role of the Court in such matters is extremely limited. By way of illustration, persistent refusal by the Investigating Agency to act in the matter or to carry out an investigation in a fair and proper manner may justify an approach to the Court and its intervention.