Delhi High Court
R.K. Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 May, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (Crl) No. 537 of 2009 & Crl. M.A. No.4660/2009
R.K. YADAV ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Tamta and Ms. Nisha
Narayan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG for
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel and Mr.
Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate for
Respondent No. 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
% O R D E R
13.05.2009
1. This writ petition has been filed as a "Public Interest
Litigation". The petitioner claims to be a former officer of Research
and Analysis Wing (hereinafter referred to as „RAW‟) where he led a
10-days pen down strike in 1980 and was ultimately dismissed from
service. It is the case of the petitioner that he is seeking to bring to
the notice of the Court the illegal attempts of the respondents of
aborting the legal system and permitting a case to die an unnatural
death to facilitate the exoneration of 50 officers of RAW, who were in
contact with one Rabinder Singh, Joint Secretary handling South-
East Asia in the RAW. The petitioner has also sought a direction for
initiation of criminal proceedings against 19 officers who were
allegedly indicted by an investigating team. It is also averred that the
RAW had deliberately not included this information/details in the
complaint filed through CBI before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
W.P.(Crtl.)No.537-2009 Page No.1 of 3
Delhi. It is stated in the petition that Rabinder Singh with the help
of CIA managed to escape to USA on a fictitious passport. It is the
case of the petitioner that the complaint filed has been deliberately
limited and restricted to the extent that Rabinder Singh was passing
secret sensitive information and had managed to flee India and
hence, he should be tried in accordance with law. As per the
petitioner, there were clear attempts to protect and shield the officers
of RAW who were either in touch with the said Rabinder Singh or had
connived with him. The petitioner has inter alia prayed for directing
an investigation by CBI as also investigation into the role of the
officers of RAW in the said matter.
2. It is the petitioner‟s own case that the matter is pending before
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. This is not a matter which
persuades us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India especially when a competent court is
seized of the matter. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC
349 that a 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. The court must be careful to see that a body
of persons or member of public who approaches the court is acting
bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or other oblique
consideration. It was also held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.N.
W.P.(Crtl.)No.537-2009 Page No.2 of 3
Godavarman vs. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 28 that public
interest litigation should be aimed at redressal of genuine public
wrong or public injury and not be publicity oriented or founded on
personal vendetta.
3. In our considered opinion, the petitioner has been unable to
make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, and also what is important is that a competent court is seized
of the matter and is dealing with the same. The writ petition is
dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of as well.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 13, 2009
sb
