Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar Dubey vs The Director on 27 December, 2023
Author: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Bench: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019
Arun Kumar Dubey, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Damodar Dubey,
R/o Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Bariatu, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 6th floor, Lok Nayak
Bhawan, PO PS Khan Market, New Delhi, 110003.
2. The Assistant Director (PMLA) Directorate of Enforcement, P.P.
Compound, Kaushalya Chamber-II, Ranchi, Sub-Zonal Office,
Ranchi.
3. The State of Jharkhand.
4. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Union of India.
6. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O./P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Central Vigilance Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkata Bhawan, A-Block, GPO Complex INA, P.O. & P.S.-G.P.O.
Complex, New Delhi, Delhi110023.
8. Amrendra Pratap Singh, I.A.S. the Then Principal Secretary, Drinking
& Sanitation Department, P.O. & P.S., District - Jharkhand.
9. Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand.
10. Director General, In-Charge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand.
11. Central Bureau of Investigation
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---------
For the Petitioners: M/s. Rajeev Kumar & Kaushalya Kumari,
Advocates
For the State: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G.
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
For the UOI: Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I.
For the ED: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 14.09.2023 Pronounced on: 27.12.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
1) This order arises out of an interim application being I.A. No. 3174
of 2023, wherein the respondents-State has prayed for dismissal of the
writ application on the ground that the petitioner does not have any
credentials.
2) This matter was heard in the Hybrid Mode and Mr. Kapil Sibal,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State, has appeared before
us virtually on several occasions and finally on 14.09.2023.
The respondents-State in this case relies upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Jharkhand Vs.
Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1541,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the petitioner in order
to maintain an application for public interest litigation must show his
credentials as a public spirited person having interest in social
upliftment and social welfare of the people. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further held that the provisions of Rules 4, 4-A and 5 of the Jharkhand
High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, are mandatory
provisions and they are not directory. The learned Senior Counsel
would, therefore, submit that the petitioner lacks credentials and,
therefore, this writ application should be rejected.
3) We queried from the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State of Jharkhand about the powers of the Court in taking up certain
cases even when the Court is not satisfied about the credentials of the
petitioner therein. The learned Senior Counsel for the State would
submit that under Rules 4 and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public
Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, the Jharkhand High Court has
jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding suo motu and such power can be
assumed by receiving any complaint, report or any information from any
source to which the Court considers sufficient to rely upon and in such
cases the Court can pass the order to register the same as suo motu
case. The learned Senior Counsel, however, would submit that the
Court should only see the averments made in the petition and not in the
supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner.
4) Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. as also Mr. Amit Kumar Das,
learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, also
express the same view.
5) The case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union Of India
& Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 28, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
the Court has power that in case the Court is having any kind to doubt
regarding the credentials of the petitioner, then it can convert the
petition into a suo motu proceeding and strike out the name of the
petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for him from the record, but
the Hon'ble Supreme Court warned that this should be exercised only in
the rarest of rare cases and not as a matter of routine. We find it
appropriate to quote the exact words used by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad's case (supra) as under:-
"23. Some unions have also tried to jump into the fray by
filing applications seeking impleadment in these proceedings
so as to contend that the allotment is of a forest land. We see
no reason to allow the impleadment of parties in these
proceedings. Be that as it may, we have to decide in the light
of facts aforenoted, whether the land leased to Maruti is
forest land or not. But before we examine the question of the
nature of the land being forest or not, it is necessary to
consider the bonafides of Deepak Agarwal who has
approached this Court in public interest. Howsoever genuine
a cause brought before a court by a public interest litigant
may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest
of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and
whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt. In a given
exceptional case where bonafides of a public interest litigant
are in doubt, the court may still examine the issue having
regard to the serious nature of the public cause and likely
public injury by appointing an Amicus Curiae to assist the
court but under no circumstances with the assistance of a
doubtful public interest litigant. No trust can be placed by
court on a mala fide applicant in public interest litigation.
These are basic issues which are required to be satisfied by
every public interest litigation.
26. For the last few years, inflow of public interest litigation
has increased manifold. A considerable judicial time is spent
in dealing with such cases. A person acting bona fide alone
can approach the court in public interest. Such a remedy is
not open to an unscrupulous person who acts, in fact, for
someone else. The liberal rule of locus standi exercised in
favour of bona fide public interest litigants has immensely
helped the cause of justice. Such litigants have been
instrumental in drawing attention of this Court and High
Courts in matters of utmost importance and in securing
orders and directions for many under-privileged such as,
pavement dwellers, bonded labour, prisoners' conditions,
children, sexual harassment of girls and women, cases of
communal riots, innocent killings, torture, long custody in
prison without trial or in the matters of environment, illegal
stone quarries, illegal mining, pollution of air and water,
clean fuel, hazardous and polluting industries or preservation
of forest as in the Godavarman's case. While this Court has
laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at
their command about the importance and significance of this
newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to
sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts
should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody
or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious
intervener without any interest or concern except for personal
gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."
6) Similar question was also examined by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd Vs. Prem Chandra
Mishra & Ors, (2007) 14 SCC 281, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:-
"11. It is true that in certain cases even though the court
comes to the conclusion that the writ petition was not in a
public interest, yet if it finds that there is scope for dealing
with the matter further in greater public interest, it can be
done. This can be done by keeping the writ petitioner out of
picture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be
done in exceptional and not in a routine manner."
7) In this case, it is seen that this Court finds certain information
regarding a possible misappropriation of funds to the tune of thousands
of crores. Hence, this Court is of further opinion that it is a fit case where
the Public Interest Litigation should be entertained, but the petitioner
should be struck out from the record. Hence, this Court orders that the
petitioner's name along with his counsel shall be struck out from the
record and it will be registered as "Court on its Own Motion".
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
8) List this matter in the 2nd week of January, 2024 before the
appropriate Bench as per Roster. Amicus should be appointed by the
appropriate Bench on that date.
9) Urgent Certified copies as per rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
A.F.R.
MM/-
