Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 5 OF 2023
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 4133 OF 2023
Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav } Petitioner
Mr. Nanasaheb V. Jadhav, Petitioner in-person.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joel Carlos, Mr.Vaibhav Bhure, Mr. Karan Kadam & Mr. A. Somandy, Advocates for the applicants in IAST/4133/2023.
Mr. Amit Munde, Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Jai Vohra, Advocates for Respondent-CBI, ACB, Pune.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General with Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, In-Charge Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State.
The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-authorities for registration of a criminal case and investigation by the Central
Bureau of Investigation (in short, “CBI”) against certain individuals.
JUDGMENT
2. The petitioner states that he filed Public Interest Litigation (St) No. 8716 of 2011 (in short, “PIL-I”) and challenged the amendments made in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 2005 (in short, “BTAL Act”). The amendments made in the BTAL Act were not in public interest and affected the valuable rights of the farmers. However, PIL-I was not placed before the Court for hearing because the learned counsel for the petitioner did not remove the objections. He filed another PIL vide Public Interest Litigation No. 109 of 2013 (in short, “PIL-II”) in which he filed an application seeking permission to amend the petition. This Court by an order dated 13th July 2018 granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw the PIL-II with liberty to file a fresh petition. The petitioner further states that on receiving certain information, he realized that the Lavasa Hill Station Project (in short, “Project”) was launched with illegal permissions granted by the government, its officers and Ministers of the Government of Maharashtra. According to the petitioner, several powerful politicians including a former Union Minister for Agriculture, Member of Parliament, Managing Director of the Hindustan Construction Company, etc. were involved in the Project.
3. The petitioner who is an agriculturist by occupation and an advocate by profession approached this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 146 of 2018 (in short, “PIL-III”) seeking intervention of this Court with the Special permission dated 5th December 2002 and the Corrigendum dated 11th December 2002 issued by the Development Commissioner (Industries) in favor of the Lake City Corporation Limited.
PIL-III was filed with manifold prayers and this Court made certain observations regarding the duty of the government as repository of public trust. This Court criticized the Project and the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (in short, “MKVDC”) which failed to protect the natural resources for the enjoyment of general public. However, the PIL-III was dismissed on 26th February 2022 with the following observations: -
4. The petitioner states that he filed a complaint on 26th December 2018 for registration of a First Information Report under sections 23, 24, 25, 34, 120B, 406, 409, 415, 420, 425, 426, 427, 430, 463, 464, 465 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and made several correspondences with the superior police officers. He has narrated the details of the correspondences and replies received by him. He says that he is compelled to approach this Court through the PIL-III as no action was taken by the police on his complaint. To justify a prayer for inquiry in the matter by the CBI, the petitioner submits that the writ Court’s power can be exercised to redress injustice and arbitrariness. The petitioner names several individuals who were in power in the State of Maharashtra and have committed serious misconduct. He refers to the decisions in “Lalita Kumari”1, “Vishwanath Chaturvedi”2 and a decision of this Court in “Param Bir Singh”3 to support the prayer for registration of
1. “Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.”: (2014) 2 SCC 1
2. “Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors.”: (2007) 4 SCC 380
3. “Param Bir Singh v. State of Maharashtra”:PIL No.6 of 2021 (decision dtd. 5th April 2021) a First Information Report and investigation by the CBI.
5. The petitioner appearing in-person submitted that the writ Court shall exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where allegations against high government functionaries are made and a finger may be raised against impartial working of the State agency. He submitted that the rule of law is foundation of a democratic society and the public trust doctrine is a part of the law of land. The petitioner contended that the present Public Interest Litigation is entertainable and dismissal of the PIL- II shall not affect his right to seek registration of a First Information Report against the persons named in the complaint dated 26th December 2018 vide Exhibit ‘A’. He further relied on the following judgments: “Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma”4, “CBI through S.P. Jaipur”5, “Sakiri Vasu”6, “Ramachandraiah”7, “Param Bir Singh”, “Harman Singh”8, “Japani Sahoo”9, “Samaj Parivartan Samudaya”10 and “K. Jagadish”11.
6. In the PIL-III, this Court dealt with the proposal and permissions for the “Special Regulations for development of tourist resorts/holiday homes/township in hill station type areas” and the initiation of the Project by the Lavasa Corporation Limited. This Court examined the Government Memorandums and different reports which proposed to grant sanction to the Lavasa Corporation Limited for construction of 10 weirs/bandharas on the backwaters of the Varasgaon/Mose dam. Certain exemptions were given in favor of the said Corporation and section 63(1A) of the BTAL Act
4. “Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat”: (2025) 4 SCC 818
5. “CBI through S.P. Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.”: (2001) 3 SCC 333
6. “Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.”: (2008) 2 SCC 409
7. “Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.”: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 893
8. “Harman Singh v. Everest Construction Co.”: 2004 SCC OnLine SC 893
9. “Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty”: 2007 (7) SCC 394
10. “Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State Karnataka”: (2012) 7 SCC 407
11. “K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G. S. & Ors.”: (2020) SCC OnLine SC 318 was amended with retrospective effect to permit transfer of agricultural land for industrial use. The petitioner challenged the amendments made in the BTAL Act and sought a declaration that the acquisition of land by the Lavasa Corporation was null and void. He made as many as 23 prayers in the PIL-III and for supporting those prayers, he raised several grounds, viz, (i) the BTAL Act was passed without following the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Council Rules; (ii) the Bill was not referred to the Joint Committee ignoring the unanimous resolutions; (iii) it was an example of arbitrariness, political favoritism and misuse of powers by the Legislature and (iv) the amendment was to regularize the illegal Project. He had also challenged the amendments made in section 44A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (in short, “MLR Code”) on several grounds. This Court observed that the PIL- III was designed to espouse the definite public purpose and intended to serve noble public cause. At the same time, this Court observed that interference in the matter at a belated stage would cause far more harm than the benefit that may accrue to the farmers. The challenges made to section 63(1A) of the BTAL Act and section 44A of the MLR Code did not succeed. The prayer seeking interference with the allotment of lands to the Lavasa Corporation and the permissions granted thereto was not accepted by the Court.
7. The petitioner is an advocate by profession and he is supposed to understand the applicable laws. The decisions relied on by him do not deal with the powers of the writ Court in a situation like the present one where as many as three PILs were previously filed by the same person. The decision in “K. V. Rajendran”12 deals with the powers of the criminal Court to alter the judgment in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. “K. V. Rajendran” takes note of
12. “K. V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID”: (2013) 12 SCC 480 investigation by the State police which lacked credibility. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the investigation of a case can be entrusted to the CBI to retain public confidence but such powers should be exercised in rare and exceptional cases. In “Ramachandraiah”, the challenge before the Court was an order passed by the Magistrate directing further investigation. A case on the point is “Sakiri Vasu”. There the death of a Major in the Indian Army was suspected to be a case of murder and not suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the scheme in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides a remedy to the aggrieved party to approach the superior police officer if a First Information Report is not registered on his complaint. He has an option in law at the second stage where the Superintendent of Police or the Officer (referred to in section 36) does not redress his grievance. In that case he can approach the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The aggrieved person has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of the statutory mechanism, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere in the matter where there is an alternative remedy to the aggrieved party; true that there is no absolute bar to a writ petition. In “Rajesh Gandhi”13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that no one can insist that an offence should be investigated by a particular agency. However, there is another line of judgments which takes the view that the High Court under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can direct the CBI to conduct investigation. In “Pooja Pal”14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that to secure a fair, honest and complete investigation and to consolidate the
13. “Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. v. Rajesh Gandhi & Anr.”: (1996) 11 SCC 253
14. “Pooja Pal v. Union of India & Ors.”: (2016) 3 SCC 135 confidence of the victim and the public in general in the justice administering mechanism, the constitutional Court can exercise its extraordinary powers to order a CBI investigation. The decision in “Vineet Narain”15, “Rajiv Rajan Singh ‘Lalan’”16 and “Pareena Swarup”17 are a few examples where the High Courts and the Supreme Court intervened to ensure that there is transparency in the governance and no extraneous consideration except the public interest takes precedence. This also needs to be remembered that in “Pooja Pal”, “Ramachandraiah” and “Vinay Tyagi”18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the power to direct CBI investigation is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that it is when extremely necessary and the facts so demand, the power to direct CBI investigation should be exercised to protect credibility and confidence in the criminal justice dispensation system.
8. The High Court exercises an important jurisdiction while taking up the Public Interest Litigation. The directions passed by the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation must be aimed at helping the marginalized sections of the society and to facilitate the access to justice. This is well recognized that the Public Interest Litigation is for making the basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community. The petitioner submitted that the High Courts have made conscious efforts to improve the judicial access for the masses by relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi and have, in fact, permitted and entertained community litigation. In “Balwant Singh Chaufal”19,on which the petitioner placed heavy reliance, the appointment of the
15. “Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.”: AIR 1998 SC 889
16. “Rajiv Rajan Singh ‘Lalan’ & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.”: (2006) 6 SCC 613
17. “Pareena Swarup v. Union of India”: (2008) 13 SCALE 84
18. “Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors.”: (2013) 5 SCC 762
19. “State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.”: (2010) 3 SCC 402 Advocate General of Uttarakhand was challenged on the ground that in view of the provisions under Article 165 read with Article 217 of the Constitution of India he was not eligible as he had attained the age of 62 years and retired as a Judge of the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in “Peoples Union of Democratic Rights”20 and observed that the Public Interest Litigation is a co-operative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State or the public authority and the judiciary to secure observance of the constitutional rights and to ensure that the benefits of such privileges are given to the poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society which they deserve.
9. The petitioner submitted that he cannot approach the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking direction for investigation by the CBI. He further submitted that the Magistrate has no power to issue any direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a matter. The registration of a criminal case entails serious consequences to the accused persons. In the PIL-III, no prayer seeking registration of a criminal case and investigation by the CBI was made. The petitioner filed a complaint on 26th December 2018 and the PIL-III was dismissed on 26th February 2022. The petitioner had an opportunity to press this prayer for the CBI investigation in the pending petition but he did not pursue the remedy available to him. There is no reason indicated in the present PIL and the petitioner does not offer any explanation why he remained silent for about six years. An investigation can be caused to find out the involvement of an accused person or a set of accused persons in the crime or a suspected crime, but there cannot be a roving inquiry or investigation into the allegations to find out commission of a crime where the alleged criminal act no longer is open for any inquiry or
20. “Peoples Union of Democratic Rights v. Union of India”: (1982) 3 SCC 235 investigation. The allegation of committing misconduct in allocation of land, the special permission and exemptions granted for the Project cannot be questioned in view of the dismissal of the PIL-III. The allegations made against the legislatures and the high constitutional functionaries in amending the provisions of the BTAL Act and the MLR Code with malafide intention and oblique purposes cannot be repeated and reiterated by the petitioner. Such a challenge laid to the amendments so made has been dismissed.
10. In this background, the acts and omissions, if any, on the part of individuals, such as, Sharad Pawar, Ajit Pawar, Supriya Sule, etc. are not open for any inquiry or investigation. It seems to us that the petitioner intends to utilize the observations made by this Court in PIL-III in paragraph no. 90 of the judgment dated 26th February 2022 wherein this Court observed that the PIL-III was designed to espouse a definite public purpose and intended to serve a noble public cause of standing by the farmers. The petitioner contended that the delay, if any, in approaching the Court shall not wash out the criminal acts of the offenders and this time this Court need not adopt the judicial hands-off approach.
11. It is more than quarter a century when the Project was conceived and 18 villages were notified as Hill Station type areas. The Project which is now called “ghost city” has failed and the promoters are embroiled in several litigations including liquidation proceedings. There are determinations by the Courts and binding decisions in law. Any inquiry by the CBI or any investigating agency cannot be ordered on the ground that the PIL-III was dismissed on the ground of delay. In the aforementioned background, it is difficult to say that the motive behind filing of the present PIL shall espouse a public cause. When we say this, we are not indicating in any manner whatsoever that this PIL has been filed with bad motive or malafide intention but, at the same time, we are hesitant to say that this is a bona fide PIL for a public cause. In “Balwant Singh Chaufal”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts, before entertaining the Public Interest Litigation, should ensure that the petition is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. It further observed that the Courts should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the Public Interest Litigation. The grievance of an individual masked as the concern of the public in general must be segregated and dismissed at the threshold.
12. The High Court should be more careful and circumspect when it deals with a writ petition projected as a Public Interest Litigation. The High Court being a repository of the rights of the citizen can interfere in a matter for larger public cause and not otherwise. It is the duty of the High Court to examine the relevant materials and bestow its considerations as to whether the prayer if granted would serve any public cause. The High Court exercises its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in furtherance of justice, equity and good conscience. It is not a matter of choice for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. Rather, the public law element and the considerations germane thereto guide the High Court to take a decision in the matter. In our opinion, no public cause is served even if any indulgence is given in this matter.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 5 of 2023 is dismissed as not maintainable.
14. Pending interim application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]