Rama Prasad Sarkar vs Union Of India And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5230 Cal

August 10th, 2022
S.L. Item No.1
Court No.1
PA(RB)
                                        WPA (P) 308 of 2022

                                        Rama Prasad Sarkar
                                                 vs.
                                       Union of India and Ors.


                      Mr. Rama Prasad Sarkar, petitioner-in-person
                      Mr. Debasis Sur, Advocate
                                                         ... for the petitioner

                      Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari
                                                        ... for the Union of India

                      Mr. Asok Kumar Chakraborty, Ld. Addl. Solicitor General
                      Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. Asst. Solicitor General
                      Mr. Arijit Majumdar
                                                                    ...for the CBI

                      Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
                      Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
                                                       ...for the respondent no. 6

The petitioner is an advocate of this Court who, by

way of this public interest petition, has made a prayer to

direct investigation in respect of involvement of the

private respondent no. 6 in Saradha scam.

The plea raised by the petitioner is that Saradha

financial scam was a major financial scam caused by the

collapse of a Ponzi Scheme run by the Saradha Group.

According to the petitioner, Saradha Group had launched

the scheme in early 2000 and the scheme had collapsed

sometimes in January, 2013. Therefore, the report was

made and the persons found responsible for running the

scheme were arrested. It is further alleged that a 4

member Judicial Enquiry Commission to probe the scam

WPA (P) 308 of 2022

was formed and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed

by Kolkata Police Commissioner was also set up. The

petitioner alleges that the respondent no. 6 had extorted

money from the chit fund agency, therefore, investigation

should be carried out against him.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3,

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has submitted that

investigation has been transferred to the CBI and the

investigation is in progress and that the writ petition is

not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has also

pointed out that the name of the respondent no. 6 has

not figured in any of the investigation by the State agency

or CBI and that it is a politically motivated and publicity

interested petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record. There is no material on record

that any of the investigation agency has found the

involvement of the respondent no. 6 in the Saradha scam.

The allegation which has been made by the petitioner in

the writ petition is also not substantiated. It has been

pointed out that respondent no. 6 is a Member of

Legislative Assembly from the opposition party and

presently, Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal

Legislative Assembly. It has also been pointed out that

the petitioner is a Member of the High Court Cell of the

Ruling Party in the State. Learned counsel for the

WPA (P) 308 of 2022

respondent has placed before this Court the order of the

Division Bench dated 11th of February, 2021 passed in

WPA (P) 53 of 2021 in the matter of Ramaprasad Sarkar

vs. Union of India and others wherein considering a PIL

by the present petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court

had observed that:

"15. On perusal of the aforesaid facts it is clearly established that the present writ petition has been filed by none else than a practicing advocate in this court, who is a member of the Calcutta High Court Tribunal Law Cell, the political party in power at present in the State of West Bengal.

16. Filing of a writ petition by an advocate, who is directly connected with a political party in power raising issues against other political party during election time cannot be said to be in larger public interest. It can be said to be a private interest litigation."

Hence, we find substance in the allegation of the

respondents that it is a politically motivated petition.

The issue relating to Saradha Chit Fund Scheme had

come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India and Others

reported in (2014) 8 SCC 768 wherein Hon'ble Supreme

Court had taken note of the relevant facts relating to the

scheme and thereafter, had transferred the investigation

to the CBI.

Learned counsel for the CBI has pointed out that the

investigation by the CBI is in progress and so far, two

charge-sheets have been filed and the CBI is trying to put

all the culprits to the book. In the present petition, no

fault or lapse on part of the CBI has been alleged. Hence,

WPA (P) 308 of 2022

the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for

issuing the direction prayed for in the writ petition.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of R and M

Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and

Ors. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 91 has noted that lately,

public interest litigation has been abused by some

interested persons and it has brought very bad name and

therefore, cautioned the Courts to be very slow in

entertaining petitions involving public interest as this

jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the

rescue of down trodden and not for the purpose of serving

private ends.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neetu vs.

State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2007) 10 SCC

614, after taking note of the earlier judgments on the

point, has held that a time has come to weed out the

petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations

are in essence something else. It has been noted that the

public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be

used with great care and circumspection and the

judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind

the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice,

vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking.

In the matter of Tehseen Poonawalla and Ors. vs.

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2018) 6 SCC

72, Hon'ble Supreme Court reached to the conclusion

that the misuse of public interest litigation is a serious

WPA (P) 308 of 2022

matter of concern for the judicial process and that it is a

travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to

be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions

purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due

scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or

political agenda.

On the perusal of the present petition, we find that

this petition is also one such petition, which has been

highly deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, we find

no ground to issue any direction in the present public

interest petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

[Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.]

[Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]