Delhi High Court
M/S Society Standing For All Youth ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 March, 2016
Author: G. Rohini
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 23rd March , 2016
+ W.P.(C) 10600/2015 & CM No.26966/2015 (interim relief)
M/S SOCIETY STANDING FOR ALL
YOUTH MASS AWARENESS & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sushant Mahapatra, Adv. with
Mr.Deepak Mahapatra, Ms.Aruni Poddar,
Ms.Aakanksha Jha and Mr.Mahavir Singh,
Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG with
Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Ms.Shipra Shukla, Mr.Neeraj
Malhotra, Ms.Rupal Luthra, Mr.Ashish Aggarwal,
Mr.Yogesh, Ms.Priyanka, Advocates for R-1, R-3 &
R-5
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ashish
Aggarwal, Adv. for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE:
1. This petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation alleging that the
appointment of Respondent No.4 as a Whole Time Member of the Security
and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is illegal and thus praying to issue a
writ of quo warranto against the Respondent No.4.
2. The Petitioner No.1 claims to be a non-governmental organization
which actively indulges in social upliftment, welfare of public and in
consumer related affairs. The Petitioner No.2 claims to be a citizen of India
who has made a complaint dated 14.07.2015 to Petitioner No.1 society
regarding the illegal appointment of Respondent No.4 without complying
with the mandatory vigilance clearance required for appointment of the
Whole Time Member of SEBI. On the basis of the said complaint, the
Petitioner No.1 is stated to have issued a legal notice dated 23.07.2015 to the
Respondents No.1 to 4 herein calling upon the Respondent No.1 to look into
the matter and initiate necessary action for termination of services of the
Respondent No.4. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were also called upon to
initiate necessary action against the illegal appointment of the Respondent
No.4 and for his immediate suspension. Since there was no response,
reminders were also sent on 11.09.2015. Alleging that the Respondent Nos.1
to 3 failed to take any action, the present petition has been filed with the
above prayer.
3. It is pleaded in the petition that the Respondent No.4 was appointed on
08.08.2012 for a period of five years as a Whole Time Member of SEBI.
The said post was advertised by the Respondent No.1 on 23.02.2012 inviting
applications from eligible candidates in the prescribed proforma and one of
the essential documents to be submitted was certificate of vigilance
clearance. The relevant para of the advertisement dated 23.03.2012
published by the Respondent No.1 reads as under:
"Applications from eligible candidates are invited in
the prescribed proforma along with the attested
copies of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)
for the last five years, Vigilance Clearance, No
Penalty & Integrity Certificate, and a Certificate
that no disciplinary proceeding(s) or criminal
proceeding(s) are either pending or contemplated
against the officer (in respect of serving Govt.
servants and employees of PSUs, Academic and
Research Institutions/Universities etc.)."
4. The allegation is that the Respondent No.4 failed to enclose the
requisite vigilance clearance certificate either at the time of filing the
application or at the time of appointment. It is contended that the vigilance
clearance for Board level appointments such as the Whole Time Member is
required to be granted by the Chief Vigilance Commission / Chief Vigilance
Officer of the concerned Ministry. However, the said requirement has not
been complied with and the Executive Director, Vigilance Department of
SEBI, who was subordinate to the Respondent No.4 and not a competent
person to issue the vigilance clearance, had addressed the letter dated
16.03.2012 to the General Manager, SEBI informing that as per the vigilance
records available with him, no vigilance matters are pending against the
Respondent No.4 and therefore vigilance clearances is accorded. It is
alleged that the said letter was without any authority and cannot be treated as
the vigilance clearance as required under the advertisement dated
23.03.2012. It is therefore contended that the appointment of the
Respondent No.4 as Whole Time Member of SEBI is illegal and a writ of
quo warranto needs to be issued to remove him from the office of Whole
Time Member of SEBI, a public office. It is alleged that the entire vigilance
mechanism has been by-passed by the Respondent No.5, the Chairman of
SEBI, and the Respondent No.4 to suit their personal interest and that the
Respondent No.5 is instrumental in forwarding the application of
Respondent No.4 to the Respondent No.1.
5. Reiterating the averments in the petition, it is vehemently contended
by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the appointment of
Respondent No.4 in the absence of the mandatory clearance from
CVC/CVO/DEA, Ministry of Finance is illegal. In support of his
submission that a writ of quo warranto can be sought by way of public
interest litigation, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of
the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 1,
Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 501; Hari
Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 655 and
Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 795.
6. Having regard to the law laid down in the above decisions that any
citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto since he stands in the position of a
relator and he need not have any special interest or personal interest, we do
not find substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsels
who appeared on advance notice on behalf of the Respondents as to the
maintainability of the writ petition.
7. However, in view of the fact that the complaint made by the
Petitioners by way of legal notice dated 23.07.2015 is yet to be considered
by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, instead of calling for the response of the
Respondents to the present petition, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the
writ petition with a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider all
the issues raised in the representation/notice of the Petitioners dated
23.07.2015 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within
eight weeks from today and communicate the same to the Petitioners. The
Petitioners are at liberty to institute fresh proceedings, in case necessity
thereof arises.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The application for
interim relief also stands dispose of.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.)
MARCH 23, 2016
pk
