JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar J.
1. S.S. Nijjar, J. (Oral):This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India with a prayer that the writ petition be treated as publicinterest litigation. The petitioners seek the issuance of writ in the nature ofcertiorari quashing the order dated 29.10.2004 (Annexure-P.5) by whichrespondent No.6 had been reinstated in service pending inquiry against him.
2. The grievance made by the petitioners is as follows:
2. That this is the Public Interest Litigation highlighting thescandal of theft/embezzlement/fraud of food grain, wheat, rice,Insecticides, Bardana (Gunnies), wooden crates, polythenetarpaulins and sheets etc. worth Billions of Rs. in the custody ofPUNSUP with prayer, to order the registration of criminal caseagainst Sher Singh, Regional Manager-cum-District Manager,Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (PUNSUP),Sangrur in connivance with Albel Singh, Field Officer,Kashmira Singh, Inspector, PUNSUP Office, Barnala andfurther for thorough investigation/inquiry in the matter and toentrust the said investigation to some independent agency likeCBI with further directions to complete the said investigation inthe short stipulated time and to take other necessary actions.However, as the petitioners are apprehending that respondentNo.5 being in connivance with Sher Singh and is helping himby misusing his official position and will not allow the fairenquiry in the matter, and even otherwise also, whoseappointment is in contravention of the conventions and customsof the PUNSUP, petitioners are also seeking removal of therespondent No.5 from his office, in the public interest.
4. That in brief, facts of the case are that PUNSUP is aautonomous body, came into existence on 14.2.1974 and themain object of setting up PUNSUP, the respondent No.3, as isenunciated in the Memorandum of Association of thePUNSUP, is to procure such items of daily necessity which areconsidered to be essential for the common man and to arrangetheir distribution to the consumers in the State either throughthe existing network of fair price shops and consumers cooperative stores or by opening its own distribution stores. ThePUNSUP is also involved in procurement of food grains andother commodities for the Central Pool and also for and onbehalf of State Government as well as on behalf of FoodCorporation of India. Here a reference may be made to thereview of PUNSUP working by the Secretary-ManagerFinance, PUNSEED, Chandigarh in the year 1989. As per thereview report, mentioned above, the functions of the PUNSUPdepartment may be summarized in the following heads.
a. To undertake trade, purchase, storage, movementsincluding interstate movement, distribution and sale of foodgrains and other foods stuffs.
b. To undertake, promote or participate in production,manufacturing, storage and processing of food grains and otherfood stuffs.
c. To plan, promote, set-up or a phased in promoting oversetting up rice mills, flour mills, oil mills, including vanaspatior such other undertakings which may help in the processing offood grains and other foodstuffs.
d. To plan, undertake, promote, set up for participate insetting up of food-based industries.
e. To undertake procurement, import, supplies anddistribution of such essential commodities as identifiedgovernment from time to time.
f. To take such other arrangements so as to show theavailability of essential commodities in the market at reasonable rates, as may be deemed necessary.
g. To undertake and promote trade in any commodity whichmay be considered feasible commercially or which may beconsidered necessary to either maintain the line of supplies ofto maintain prices in the market.
h. To trade or carry on business in other kind ofmerchandise and for that purpose, and sell all kinds of goodsincluded in this category.
i. To purchase, set up, maintain and run agricultural trade,poultry farms, dairy farm and such other undertakings of thisnature and description which can be utilized for production ofany foodstuffs or their allied products and to store and sell theproduce therefrom.
The PUNSUP has ceased to perform all the functionsgiven to it, except procurement of wheat for the central pooland procurement of paddy under the same scheme. Thereduction has been due to change of policy of the governmentof India Punjab government/control of sugar, cement and otheressential commodities has been relaxed and these products arebeing sold in the market freely without any control of the State.The main business of the PUNSUP is procurement of food-grains for the Central pool.
3. The petitioners claim to be social spirited citizens of India having nopersonal interest in the matter. The writ petition, according to them, hasbeen filed with a motive to safeguard the property of the PUNSUP which isa Punjab Government undertaking. Respondent No.5 is the ManagingDirector of the PUNSUP whereas Sher Singh (respondent No.6) is theRegional Manager of PUNSUP. According to the petitioners, respondentNo.5 has entrusted the charge of the most lucrative area of Punjab torespondent No.6. It is stated that the affairs of PUNSUP are being totallymismanaged. The Managing Director was appointed at the whims of theChief Minister. The Government merely issues orders of appointment onthe decision taken by the Chief Minister. It is categorically stated that onehas to be very close and near to the Chief Minister to be appointed as theManaging Director of the PUNSUP. In the present case also, it is stated thatrespondent No.5 is very well known to the Chief Minister and has good andclose family relations with the Chief Minister. It is further stated that SherSingh (respondent No.6) is also closely known to respondent No.5 and hasbeen protected by respondent No.5 by going out of way and the rules.Information with regard to the misappropriation of wheat by respondentNo.6 was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Barnala. Similarly, somepublic spirited persons also sent information to the Chief Minister ofPunjab. The letters were sent on 7.1.2004 and 23.2.2004 respectively. TheDeputy Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Punjab took notice of thematter and marked the same to ADGP (Vigilance) for inquiry. Afterinquiry, no criminal case was registered against any of the culprits. It is alsostated that the whole inquiry by the Vigilance Department is only an eye wash. Number of public spirited persons met with the Vigilance authoritiesin this regard, but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioners state that theVigilance Bureau, which was set-up specifically to check unscrupulous andillegal activities of the public servants and to prevent the spread ofcorruption has miserably failed in its statutory duty. Taking note of theseillegalities, respondent No.5 actually suspended respondent No.6 on21.6.2004. It is stated that the petitioners have come to know thatrespondent No.6 has been reinstated in service in spite of the fact that he hascommitted loss of Rs.7,09,45,474/-. This loss has been caused due toconnivance of respondents No.5 and 6. The following questions of lawhave been framed in paragraph 23 of the writ petition:
a. Whether present case requires investigation from independent agency like CBI.
b. Whether prima facie criminal case is made out againstthe real culprit officers/officials.
c. Whether act of the respondent No.5 in reinstating SherSingh is justified and is in accordance with and if not, whetherimpugned order dated 29.10.2004, Annexure-P.5 is liable to beset aside.
d. Whether appointment of respondent is in contraventionof the conventions and customs of the PUNSUP.
e. Whether petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for.”All the respondents have filed detailed written statements. Inpreliminary objection No.2, respondent No.5 has categorically stated that itis a settled proposition of law that the concept of PIL was devised to helpthe judiciary in extending its long arm of sympathy to the poor, ignorant,oppressed and the needy. Its abuse and unregulated use would make it atool for seeking vendetta by persons meddling with the judicial process forimproper motive or a bargain for a good deal including enrichingthemselves. It is further stated that the present public interest litigation is anabuse of the process of law. Thereafter, the written statement sets out indetail the functioning of PUNSUP. The reply is accompanied by therelevant documents. Respondent No.6 has again taken similar objections. Itis specifically stated that the writ petition is full of generalizations. Thepetitioners knowingly, wilfully and intentionally have not disclosed as to inwhat manner they have gathered all the information. The petitioners,thereafter filed a replication.
4. This writ petition has been pending in this Court since5.11.2004. The respondents have all engaged Advocates. Respondent No.5has in fact engaged Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate. The pleadingsare complete. Before the matter could be taken up for hearing on merits,learned counsel for the petitioners has made a request that he may bepermitted to withdraw this public interest litigation. On being asked thereason for withdrawing the writ petition after a period of two years, counselfor the petitioners submitted that in view of the written statements filed bythe respondents, the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn. TheCourt, however, was not inclined to allow the prayer made at such a latestage. Pendency of this writ petition for the last two years at motion stagehad consumed precious judicial time of this Court which could be utilized tocontain the increase in the number of cases which are already pending inthis Court. After the Court had expressed its opinion that the petition can bepermitted to withdraw on payment of very heavy costs, the counsel for thepetitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to argue the matter onmerits. We fail to see how the learned counsel for the petitioners wouldhave anything to argue on merits in view of the statement earlier made thatthe petition may be permitted to be withdrawn in view of the writtenstatements filed by the respondents. In our opinion, the prayer for arguing the writ petition on merits has been made only to avoid payment of the costsfor the wastage of judicial time. The defence of the writ petition has alsoentailed wastage of time of public servants as well as public funds inseeking legal representation to defend the writ petition. A perusal of thewrit petition clearly discloses that it is full of generalizations. No materialhas been placed on the record in support of any of the averments made. Thepetitioners were unable to give details of the close or family ties ofrespondent No.5 with the Chief Minister of Punjab. No details are given asto the misfeasance or malpractice which may have been committed byrespondents No.5 and 6. No details are given as to how the petitioners aresocially spirited persons. The petitioners have failed to disclose any othercauses which might have been espoused by the petitioners in public interest.
5. Mr. Aggarwal has submitted that the writ petition seems tohave been motivated by the reinstatement of respondent No.6 by respondentNo.5. Learned counsel further submits that in any event a public interestlitigation would not be maintainable in service matters. The writ petition isin fact aimed against the reinstatement of respondent No.6 and has beendisguised as public interest litigation by even seeking the removal ofrespondent No.5. Mr. Puneet Bali appearing for respondent No.6 hasbrought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. and submitted thata public interest litigation would not be even maintainable in servicematters. He has specifically placed reliance on the observations made bythe Supreme Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment, which are as under:
As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions,which though titled as public interest litigations are in essencesomething else. It is shocking to note that courts are floodedwith a large number of so-called public interest litigations,whereas only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be calledas public interest litigations. Though the parameters of publicinterest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a largenumber of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions andobjectives, courts at times are entertaining such petitions andwasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could beotherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, this Court held that in service matters PILs should notbe entertained, the inflow of the so-called PILs involvingservice matters continues unabated in the courts and strangelyare entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throwthem out on the basis of the said decision. This tendency isbeing slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motioncriminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gainingpublicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. Theother interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documentsare being annexed without even indicating as to how thepetitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticedthat an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It wasstated that a packet was lying on the road and when out ofcuriosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the officialdocuments. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of gettingsuch copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would getexposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture.Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession,the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions butalso to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie givesimpression about oblique motives involved, and in most casesshows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even aremote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative forthe court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of thepetition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable forthe courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss themwith costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the rightdirection that petitions filed with oblique motive do not havethe approval of the courts.
6. It is a settled proposition of law that the concept of public interest litigation was developed by the Supreme Court to undo and eradicateinjustice for and on behalf of the poor, handicapped and incapacitatedsegment of the population of India. It was not developed to permitbusybodies and dubious minded persons to wreck vendetta on their rivals ortheir actual or imaginary enemies.
7. We are of the considered opinion that the present writ petitionis a clear abuse of the process of Court. It has resulted in unnecessarywastage of precious judicial time. We are also of the opinion that thepetitioners do not have any locus standi to file the present writ petition. Thewrit petition is also not maintainable in view of the law laid down by theSupreme Court in Dr. B. Singh’s case (supra).
8. In such circumstances, we find no merit in this writ petitionand dismiss the same. The facts and circumstances of this case are such thatthe petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs but keeping in viewthe future career of a young lawyer who is appearing in this case, we refrain from imposing any costs. Dismissed.