Jharkhand High Court
Kameshwar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(PIL) No. 3432 of 2021
------
Kameshwar Prasad ... ... ......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator, Forest, Jharkhand.
4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi.
5. The Range Officer, Mahilong, Ranchi.
6. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Range Officer, Mahilong, Ranchi. .... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
-----
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG
For respondent No. 6 : M/s Manoj Tandon, Neha Bhardwaj and
Adamya Kerketta, Advocates.
-----
04/ Dated: 13.07.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed
the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C. J.)
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s);
(a) For the direction upon the respondents especially
respondent No. 2 and 3 to investigate as to how the
plantation for 3,111 plaints planted during 72 th Inter State
Plantation Program has submerged within few days of its
plantation and thus causing loss to the public exchequer.
Although, it was planned for 30,000 saplings but ultimately
this has been done and the money has been pocketed by
the respondent No. 6.
(b) For the direction upon the respondents to call for a
report of enquiry committee, RCCF, Secretary, Forest and
Shantosh Kr. Chaubey, Addl. Secretary on April 2021 but
that has not been enquired for the reasons best known to
the Department because even during 70th Van Mahossav,
there was the plan for planting 48,000 plants during the
period of erstwhile government and they have planted only
22,000 plants. Ultimately there was a plan of plantation of
2.40 crores in the year 2018, similar in the year 2019 but
nothing has progressed and whatever they have planted
only 10% plants are surviving.
(c) For the direction upon the respondent to initiate the
audit of plants for the 10 years at a various sites and also
bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court as to how many
plaints are surviving and what is the rate of plants surviving.
(d) For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of this
case.
The petitioner was an employee of the Forest Department. After
retirement from service, he is acting as a President of Jharkhand Rajya Awar
Van Sewa Sangh. He has prayed for institution of criminal case against certain
persons for defalcation of public money.
We have also perused the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent
No. 6 raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition.
It is brought to our notice that the petitioner has not only violated Rules 4 and 5
of the Jharkhand High Court/ Public Interest Litigation Rules 2010, but also he is
guilty of suppressing materials facts in view of the fact that a Vigilance case
being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 23/2000 relating to corruption allegedly
committed by the petitioner has been initiated and is pending before the
authorities. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner was taken to
judicial custody on 10.10.2009 and he was put under suspension. He was
released from judicial custody on 2.12.2019. However, such fact has not been
reflected in the body of the writ petition.
From the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent No. 1, it appears
that this case is squarely covered by judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma
and Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541. The mandatory provision of
Rules 4 and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules has
not been followed and the petitioner is a guilty of suppressing the materials
facts.
The counter affidavit, filed by respondent No. 6 further reveals that
the petitioner was suspended after his arrest and his suspension was revoked
after he was released on bail. Thus, it is clear that a criminal case is pending
against him, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disclosed the
same before us.
Curiously, another development has taken place as a news was
published on 11.9.2021, i.e., after filing of this Public Interest Litigation, before it
was listed before Bench that a retired Ranger, Kamehswar Prasad has initiated
a Public Interest Litigation against the officials of the Forest Department. Thus
the action of this writ petitioner is not above board, as he is not only guilty of
suppressing the material fact, but it also appears that the said act has been
carried out due to some kind of personal vendetta.
In that view of the matter, we dismiss this Public Interest Litigation
with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh), to be deposited before the
Mediation Centre, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within
thirty days, failing which, the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA, will take
appropriate steps for recovery of the costs under the Bihar and Orissa Public
Demand Recovery (Jharkhand-Amendment) Act, 2016.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Anu/-Cp2.
