Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhay vs (Deleted As Per Court Order Dated ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3292
1 WP-2312-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2312 of 2019
ABHAY
Versus
(DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 28/02/2022 AND 08/07/2024)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - learned Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India.
02. By way of this Public Interest Litigation(PIL), the petitioner is seeking
the following relief :-
"1. To exhaust the pending list for grant of sanction against erring public
servants for prosecution as early as possible.
2. To identify the culprits on the basis of documentary evidence and proceed
against them as per IPC.
3. For issuance of direction to prosecute the concerned public servants on the
basis of grant of sanction issued by the Circulars and notifications
issued by the State Government from time to time.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3292
2 WP-2312-2019
4. For declaring the effect of Circular dated 05/09/2014 regarding similar
grant of sanction as null and void.
5. For declaring the process for taking circulars by writing note-sheet be
declared as null and void.
6. To issue direction for appointment of sufficient law officers for various
departments with regard to grant of sanction for prosecuting the erring
public servants.
7. To prosecute the concerned officers, who deliberately delayed the process
for grant of sanction.
8. Issue grant of sanction against government servants within stipulated time
period.
9. To prevent Government Departments to re-investigate the matter, as the
same was already investigated by the Government
authorities prior to grant permission for prosecuting the concerned employee.
10. To prevent the government authorities from cancelling the Circulars and
notifications without having any lawful ground and evidence by writing
note-sheet and same be done by taking due permission from Law and
Legislative department."
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is
medical representative and he has no personal interest in the present petition. The
grievance of the petitioner is that department of law and legislative affairs has
power to grant sanction prior to prosecute any public servant, however, due to
various procedural lapse grant of sanction could not be issued on time, therefore,
learned counsel for the petitioner prays for direction to the respondents/authorities
for initiation of prosecution against concerned public servants according to the
pending list as early as possible.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3292
3 WP-2312-2019
04. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and
submitted that petitioner has not disclosed the names, details and particulars of the
public servants, against whom procedure for grant of sanction and prosecution is
pending. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not impleaded them as party in
the present petition. Merely on the basis of pleadings without having any
documentary evidence, the grievance of the petitioner could not be entertained.
Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Pratap
Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others[2019 (1) M.P.L.J. 75] to contend that the
petitioner has failed to produce any record to satisfaction of the Court so also he
does not satisfy the test of locus standi. Therefore, this writ petition is not
maintainable.
05. The Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Pratap Singh(supra), has
referred to the judgment of the Apex Court involving Public Interest Litigation in
the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others[(2010) 3
SCC 402] wherein the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines to be followed
before exercising jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation. The guidelines are as
under :-
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively
discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing
with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to
properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL
filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who
have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The
Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the RP
638/2017 Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this
court immediately thereafter.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3292
4 WP-2312-2019
(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before
entertaining a PIL.
(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the
contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved
before entertaining the petition.
(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public
interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at
redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure
that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the
public interest litigation.
(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for
extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs
or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions
filed for extraneous considerations."
06. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present
petition, none of the aforesaid guidelines are satisfied as laid down in the case of
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others(surpa) , therefore, this
writ petition is not maintainable.
07. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
08. The two questions which arises for consideration in this Public Interest
Litigation are as under :
"(i) Whether a PIL is maintainable at the instance of the strangers on the
pretext that he is not an interested person ?"
9. So far as the answer to the said question is concerned, except the
averments in the petition, there is no documentary evidence has been filed by him
in support of his pleadings. Merely, pleadings are not sufficient to invoke the
public interest writ jurisdiction of this Court unless the petitioner is able to
produce on record to the satisfaction of the Court, due to which the public interest
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3292
5 WP-2312-2019
writ petition is involved. Petitioner does not satisfy the test of a locus standi to file
public interest litigation. The public interest writ jurisdiction was intended to
vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who
were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and
were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. However, the
individuals who are effected and having grievance may approach this Court in
individual capacity seeking ventilation of their grievance. The question as to
whether there is delay and latches in grant of sanction by the
respondents/authorities, has to be decided only after recording evidence. This
Court cannot decide the writ petition based on disputed question of facts. The PIL
is absolutely misconceived and cannot be entertained.
12. In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the guidelines laid down in
the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others(surpa) , this
Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is,
hereby, dismissed at the admission stage itself.
No order as to cost.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
