Prajasattak Samajik Seva Sanstha vs Superintendent Of Police
2010 Latest Caselaw 83 Bom

    PNP                                       1                                      PIL71-21.10


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                       
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                               
             PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.71 OF 2010

    Prajasattak Samajik Seva Sanstha                              ..Petitioner.




                                                              
               Vs.
    Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur
    and others                                                    ..Respondents.
                                       ....

Mr. T.S. Ingale i/b Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent

Nos.1, 2, 4 5, and 6. - State.

....

CORAM :MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J .

21 October 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

1. This Petition which purports to have been instituted in the public interest questions an event organized by the Kolhapur Police,

styled as 'Bollywood Nite - 2010'. The Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 and claims to be involved in social work and public causes. Among the public causes

espoused by the Petitioner are stated to be issues relating to the disposal of municipal solid waste, water pollution and problems pertaining to the supply of drinking water. The grievance of the Petitioner is that a brochure was published by the Superintendent of

PNP 2 PIL71-21.10

Police of Kolhapur and donations were collected for the organization

of the event, noted earlier for promoting the welfare of policemen and for the construction of a police hospital. According to the Petitioner

the prior permission of the Charity Commissioner was not obtained under Section 41C of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 and the

Charity Commissioner was not informed about the collection of donations. According to the Petitioner no details have been furnished of the collection of funds for the Police Welfare Fund. Tickets were

sold for the event at rates varying between Rs.100/- to Rs.1,000/- and

monies were raised through the publication of advertisements. The Petitioner made an application for information under the Right to

Information Act in respect of the funds collected during the period 2008-09 and of whether permission was taken for the event. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, had according to the Petitioner stated

that the permission of the Charity Commissioner had not been

obtained. The Petitioner has accordingly sought a declaration that the collection of donations for the event which was to be held on 9 April 2010 was illegal and an enquiry by the Charity Commissioner inter

alia under Section 41C of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 has been sought. A disclosure of the accounts by the First and Second Respondents who are respectively the Superintendent of Police,

Kolhapur and the Special Inspector General of Police, Kolhapur Range has been sought.

PNP 3 PIL71-21.10

2. An affidavit in reply was initially filed by the Information

Officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police. Subsequently in view of the orders passed by this Court on 8 September 2010 and 6 October

2010, the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur has also filed an affidavit in reply. The credentials of the Petitioner have been questioned in

the submissions urged before the Court on behalf of the Respondents and it has been urged that the Petition has been filed for extraneous reasons and merely to generate publicity. It has been stated that

though on 22 March 2010 a Division Bench of this Court had merely

directed that the Petition be listed for hearing on 1 April 2010, the Petitioner issued a press note observing that this Court had taken a

serious note of the issues raised in the Petition and several news reports were published on 25 and 26 March 2010 in the daily newspapers. On merits, it has been submitted that the Charity

Commissioner has by an order dated 30 March 2010 allowed the

application filed by the First Respondent under Section 41C of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950. It has been stated that all requisite permissions were obtained. It has been stated that the Police Welfare

Fund was established in 1948 by the then Government of the Province of Bombay. The Director General of Police in the State is the President of the fund. The Kolhapur Police Department had decided

to organize a police welfare show on 9 April 2010 to augment the fund. The object of the fund is to give aid to policemen and their families in emergent situations by providing welfare facilitates. The

PNP 4 PIL71-21.10

accounts of the Welfare Fund are duly maintained and are audited. A

comprehensive audit of the Police Welfare Fund at Kolhapur is stated to have been undertaken by the Accountant General. Every year

inspection of the records is conducted by the Special Inspector General of Police. In the circumstances, it has been submitted that

the Petition has not been instituted bona fide in the public interest. The Petitioner convened a press conference on 25 March 2010 and news reports came to be published in pursuance of misleading

information given to the press. False allegations, it is submitted were

levelled including that the tickets did not bear serial numbers. In his further affidavit, the Superintendent of Police while substantially

reiterating the contents of the earlier affidavit stated that permission to organize the cultural event for the benefit of the Police Welfare fund and for the sale of tickets was accorded by the Deputy Inspector

General of Police. All other requisite permissions are also stated to

have been obtained.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The principal contention of the Petitioner is that the permission of the Charity Commissioner was not obtained under Section 41C of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950. Now Section 41C provides as

follows :

"41C. Persons (other than Public Trusts) collecting moneys, etc. for religious or charitable purpose to inform Charity Commissioner of such collections

PNP 5 PIL71-21.10

forthwith etc. - (1) Any person, (not being a public trust registered under this Act) collecting any money subscription,

donation or other property for religious or charitable purpose shall forthwith inform the Charity Commissioner in

writing of such collection and the purpose for which such collections is made.

(2) On receipt of such information, the Charity

Commissioner may, on making such inquiry as he deems fit, permit such collection to be continued subject to such condition as he deems fit, or may, after recording his reasons in writing in that behalf direct such person to stop

making such collection forthwith and require such person to render an account of the collection made by him.

(3) It shall be the duty of every such person to comply with the directions or any order made by the Charity

Commissioner under sub-section (2)."

4. Sub section (1) requires that the Charity Commissioner has

to be informed in writing where a person other than a public trust is

collecting money subscription, donation or property for a religious or a charitable purpose. Under sub section (2) the Charity Commissioner upon making an enquiry may permit the collection to be continued

subject to such conditions as he may impose. Alternately, the Charity Commissioner may direct the person furnishing the information to stop making the collection and to require that an account be rendered

of the collection made by the person. In the present case as a matter of fact an application was made to the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner issued an order on 30 March 2010 permitting

PNP 6 PIL71-21.10

the collection of donations for the event in question subject to various

conditions including the filing of accounts within one month of the completion of the event. The grievance of the Petitioner is that an

application was submitted to the Charity Commissioner under Section 41C only after the Petition was lodged before this Court on 19 March

2010. Though the order of the Charity Commissioner noted earlier is based on an application dated 30 March 2010, it has been stated on behalf of the First Respondent that an application was as a matter of

fact submitted in the month of February to the Charity Commissioner.

That application, however, it is urged was not in the prescribed format and consequently a proper application as required was submitted on

30 March 2010. The disclosure of information to the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act by the Information Officer on 8 March 2010 is consistent with this insofar as it records that for 2010 an

application as of the date of the letter had not been received in the

prescribed form for the collection of donations under Section 41C for the Police Welfare Fund. The letter, however, records that an application had been made The letter of disclosure states that an

application had been received, a copy of which could be made available in accordance with the existing rules. As of 8 March 2010 the Charity Commissioner had not granted permission. The Charity

Commissioner granted permission for the collection of donations for the Police Welfare Fund on 30 March 2010. Hence, the foundation of the petition which is that donations have not been permitted by the

PNP 7 PIL71-21.10

Charity Commissioner under Section 41C is lacking in substance.

Section 41C, it may be noted does not postulate the grant of prior permission by the Charity Commissioner. If permissions were refused

the collection would have to be discontinued and an account thereof would have to be rendered to the Charity Commissioner. Once

permission is granted the collection would have to abide by the conditions imposed by the Charity Commissioner. Apart from this, it would be necessary to note, that it has been stated in the affidavit in

reply that the accounts of the fund have been duly audited by the

Accountant General. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has stated that the Respondents would be ready and willing to

furnish the Petitioner inspection of the accounts at any stage.

5. There is substance in the grievance of the Respondents that

the Petition does not constitute a bona fide invocation of the

jurisdiction of this Court in the public interest. The Petition was instituted on 19 March 2010. On 22 March 2010 the Petition was upon being mentioned before a Division Bench presided over by the Chief

Justice directed to be listed on 1 April 2010. Even before the Petition could come up for admission, the Petitioner proceeded to distribute a press note recording that this Court had taken a serious note of the

issues raised in the Petition. Diverse news reports were published in the press about the contents of the Petition. The press circular issued by the Petitioner on 25 March 2010 clearly contains a false statement to the

PNP 8 PIL71-21.10

effect that this Court has taken a serious note of the issues raised in

the Petition. At that stage, save and except for directing that the Petition would come up for hearing on 1 April 2010, there was no

such order of the Division Bench. The Petition is therefore not a bona fide attempt at ventilating a genuine grievance in the public

interest. The attempt of the Petitioner is to obtain publicity for itself and to malign the officers of the Police Department at Kolhapur. This Court must strongly deprecate the misuse of its jurisdiction by

litigants such as the Petitioner in aid of collateral ends. It is

necessary for the Court to impose exemplary costs in order to deter recourse to the jurisdiction of the Court motivated by extraneous

considerations.

6. For the reasons which we have recorded earlier, we do not

find any merit in the Petition. We dismiss the Petition with costs

quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only). The costs shall be deposited by the Petitioner with the Police Welfare Fund through Respondent No.5 within one month from from today.,

CHIEF JUSTICE

(DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)