Shri
P.K. Dave Vs. Peoples Union of Civil Liberties Delhi & Ors [1996] INSC 737 (10 May 1996)
G.B.
Pattanaik (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J) Agrawal, S.C.
(J) Pattanaik, J.
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 262 JT 1996 (5) 381 1996 SCALE (4)652
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
This
Appeal by Special Leave has been filed by Shri P.K. Dave, Lt. Governor of Delhi seeking expunction of the following
strictures made against him by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in its
judgment dated 26.5.1995 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3032 of 1994. The
strictures sought to be expunged are :
"(a)
We would hold that the decision of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, not to initiate
disciplinary action against respondent no. 2 and not to shift him from the post
of Director, G.B. Pant Hospital, is vitiated by illegality, irrationality,
arbitrariness and malafides and hence it has no legal sanction. It is declared
accordingly.
(b) In
fact by rejecting the suggestion of the Secretary and the Chief Secretary to
transfer Dr. Khalilullah the Lt. Governor acted in an arbitrary and
unreasonable manner and abused his power.
(c)
The Lt. Governor overruled and rejected the suggestion of the Secretary and the
Chief Secretary in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. No fair minded
authority could have rejected the suggestion in the given circumstances.
(d) In
these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in
alleging that the decision not to take disciplinary action against Dr. Khalilullah
and not to shift him from the post of Director of G.B. Pant Hospital was not
taken by the Lt. Governor on his own and that it was dictated by someone else,
that is, Shri A.N. Verma who is stated to be a close friend and personal
patient of Dr. Khalilullah."
The
Writ Petition in question had been filed by the Peoples Union of Civil
Liberties and Delhi Medicos' and Scientists' Front alleging massive financial
fraud perpetrated by the Director of G.B. Pant Hospital involving more than Rs.
39 crores and the loss thereby caused to the public exchequer. One Dr. A. Khalilullah
was the Director of G.B. Pant Hospital who was alleged to have committed
financial fraud. The prayer in the Writ Petition was that the said Dr. Khalilullah
should be immediately suspended and a regular criminal case should be
registered against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and
the Authorities should recover from him the public money wasted on account of
the alleged culpable act of said Dr. Khalilullah. In the proceedings the
appellant had not been arrayed as a party respondent but the State of Delhi
through the Chief Secretary and Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Health had been arrayed as party respondents apart from Dr. Khalilullah, the
then Director of G.B. Pant Hospital. The applicants had alleged that certain
complaints had been received by the Department of Revenue(Intelligence) against
the financial irregularities committed by Dr. Khalilullah and on receipt of
such complaints various searches have been conducted in the premises of several
suppliers of hospital equipments of G.B. Pant Hospital. In course of search
several articles were seized and several incriminating documents have also been
seized. Notices also have been issued to the suppliers as well as to the
authorities. But the Delhi Administration had appointed a Committee to
investigate into the matter which is commonly known as 'Arora Committee'. The
said Committee had clearly found several irregularities to the extent that even
machines and equipments imported for G.B.
Pant Hospital have never been brought to the hospital and are still lying
in the cellars duly packed for years together. The report further indicated
that some of the machines purchased for G.B.
Pant Hospital from the Government funds were found installed in a private
hospital like Batra Hospital.
Notwithstanding
the aforesaid report of the Arora Committee no action has been taken against
Dr. Khalilullah. The Collector of Customs had imposed penalty on several
suppliers for alleged irregularities committed by them. In June 1993 the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India in his report to the Union of India devoted to the gross financial
malpractices in the G.B. Pant Hospital and when the report was placed in
Parliament the Delhi Administration appointed another Committee under the
Chairmanship of Dr. A.K. Gupta, Dean of Maulana Azad Medical College. Gupta
Committee also submitted its report in October 1993 and the Committee found
gross financial irregularities to the extent that the equipments worth Rs. 17 crores
were unaccounted and 228 files relating to purchase of equipments were missing
from the official records. It is on the basis of that report when the Health
Secretary to the Government of Delhi Administration had recommended suspension
of Dr. Khalilullah or his shifting from G.B. Pant Hospital so that appropriate
enquiry can be made in a congenial atmosphere, no action was taken against him.
It was also alleged that said Dr. Khalilullah while continuing as the Director
of the Hospital is destroying the original record to wipe off the evidence and,
therefore, the applicants prayed for the relief as already stated. The
respondents before the High Court filed their counter affidavits denying the
allegations made and opposing the relief sought for.
The
respondent no. 2 Dr. Khalilullah himself in his affidavit denied the
allegations and contended that he has no role in the so-called financial
irregularities and though fraud had been committed by the officers below him he
had no knowledge of it nor had he given any consent to it. He had further
stated that this application which is in nature of Public Interest Litigation
had been filed at the behest or one Dr. Anoop Safaya. In the rejoinder filed by
the respondents it was further averred that no action was taken against Dr. Khalilullah
because of unusual interest shown by the Principal Secretary to the Prime
Minister and it is because of him the Union Home Secretary had addressed a
letter to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration not to precipitate action
against Dr. Khalilullah and it is because of this external pressure, against
the public interest, the appellant did not accept the recommendations of the
Health Secretary to the Delhi Administration as well as the Chief Secretary,
Delhi Administration and allowed the continuance of Dr. Khalilullah as the
Director of G.B. Pant Hospital. The High Court ultimately considered all the
relevant documents and came to the conclusion that the matter relating to
initiation of disciplinary action against Dr. Khalilullah did not receive a
proper and fair consideration and, therefore, the authority competent to take
the decision in the matter should consider and decide the question in
accordance with law. Further in view of the allegations about missing of
purchase files and destruction of evidence, the attempts to cover up the fraud,
the possible involvement of Dr. Khalilullah himself in the fraud, pending
investigation into the irregularities, the continued damage that could be done
to a fair and proper investigation and the need for maintaining public
confidence in the matter, since the authorities concerned were indifferent and
irresponsible in their attitude on account of external pressure the Court
directed that Dr. Khalilullah should not be allowed to function as Director of
G.B. Pant Hospital and he should forthwith relinquish his office as Director of
the Hospital and shall hand over charge to the seniormost Head of the
Department in the Hospital. We are not concerned with the legality of the
aforesaid directions in the present case. Suffice it to mention that Dr. Khalilullah
had moved this Court by way of Special Leave Petition and the same was disposed
of by order dated 5th June, 1995 directing the Central Government to take a
decision and submit a report as to initiation of any disciplinary action
against Dr. Khalilullah by June 15, 1995 and since no interim stay was granted
in respect of the High Court judgment the order had to be complied with. But in
the judgment in question since role of the appellant came up for consideration
more particularly his inaction in not shifting Dr. Khalilullah as Director of
G.B. Pant Hospital notwithstanding the recommendation of the Health Secretary
and Chief Secretary to Delhi Administration the aforesaid strictures had been
passed by the High Court which the appellant wants expunction.
Mr.
K.K. Venugopal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the appellant not being a party to the Writ Petition no
strictures could have been passed by the High Court without issuing notice to
him and without hearing him on the subject. He further contended that in view
of the relief sought for in the Writ Petition no question of animadverting to
any conduct of the appellant in regard lo the transfer of Dr. Khalilullah from G.B. Pant Hospital as an integral part of the judgment
of the Court would arise and, therefore, the so-called strictures were wholly
uncalled for. The learned counsel also urged that the transfer of Dr. Khalilullah
not being governed by any statute and being purely an administrative decision
and the appellant having exercised his discretion in the matter, there was no
justification for the Court to hold his discretion as illegal, irrational,
arbitrary and malafide.
According
to Mr. Venugopal the decision of the appellant was his personal and had no
connection with the request made by the Principal Secretary to the Prime
Minister and the appellant having taken such decision bona fide the High Court
should not have issued the strictures. According to Mr. Venugopal the appellant
who was a seasoned bureaucrat having weighed the pros and cons of suspending
and/or shifting a senior doctor of eminence and having come to the conclusion
that great injustice would be caused if such hasty decision is taken and,
therefore, suggested not to take any action until the CBI, after investigation,
makes such prayer, the said decision cannot be characterized as an arbitrary
decision and, therefore, the strictures made by the High Court in the judgment
on question are wholly inappropriate uncalled for and should be expunged by
this Court.
Mr. Shanti
Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Peoples Union of Civil
Liberties at whose instance the High Court has passed the order, on the other
hand submitted, that for granting the relief sought for against Dr. Khalilullah
the Court had no other option than to examine the order of the appellant who
had directed not to shift Dr. Khalilullah and not to suspend him until CBI
makes recommendation. And therefore, the role of appellant was very much under
scrutiny of the Court. Mr. Shanti Bhushan further urged that no doubt the order
passed by the appellant was in discharge of his administrative function, but
the learned counsel contended that when a public authority discharges his
public function and duty and a complaint is made by an individual in respect of
same, the Court would be fully entitled to investigate and find out whether the
power has been to exercised in a fair and honest mannar or has been exercised
on account of certain external pressure and if the Court come to the conclusion
that the power has not been exercised honesty and fairly then there would be no
other alternative with the Court than to interfere with the order and to pass
the order in accordance with law. According to Mr. Shanti Bhushan from the note
sheet which was placed before the Court it is apparent that the appellant who
was earlier apprised about the matter by the Health Secretary had possibly
agreed and pursuant to which the Secretary Health, Delhi Administration put up
the note but when the matter was made known before final decision was taken, it
is the intervention of the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister which
resulted in the order of the appellant and therefore the appellant did not pass
the same fairly and honestly as a seasoned bureaucrat but on the other hand on
account of external pressure and pursuant to the request made by Shri Verma,
the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. According to Mr. Shanti Bhushan
in view of series of enquiry reports alleging large scale financial
irregularities by Dr. Khalilullah, no reasonable man could have allowed Dr. Khalilullah
to continue on the post of Director and it had been revealed that several
important files have been destroyed and the remaining files would also have
been destroyed. In this view of the matter, according to Mr. Shanti Bhushan
complaint by the Lt. Governor is wholly unjustified. So far as non-impleadment cf
the appellant in the Writ Petition is concerned, Mr. Shanti Bhushan urged that
the Court has not taken into consideration any other material than the relevant
files which have been produced for inspection and the entire comments are based
upon the notes and orders passed by different authorities and, therefore, no
prejudice can be said to have been suffered by the appellant by not getting any
opportunity of hearing in the Writ Proceeding. That apart in the application
filed for expunction he had full opportunity to explain in this Court and yet
nothing has been indicated and, therefore the so called strictures made by the
High Court should not be expunged. Lastly Mr. Shanti Bhushan urged that in the
recent past while the other constitutional functionaries have not been able to
discharge their constitutional obligations for one reason or other this is the
only wing i.e. the judicial wing which has been able to discharge its
constitutional obligation to the satisfaction of the society at large and the
public at large has the full confidence on the judicial system and any
interference with the observations/strictures made in the circumstances of this
case would be a blow to the public confidence and accordingly no intervention
by this Court is called for.
In
view of the submissions made at the Bar the first question that arises for
consideration is whether the role of the appellant was at all necessary to be
scrutinized by the Court in granting the relief sought for. As has been stated
earlier the Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties had filed an application as a
Public Interest Litigation and the entire grievance was that notwithstanding
gross financial irregularities committed by Dr. Khalilullah no action is being
taken and on the other hand he is being shielded and in the process he is
obliterating the evidence in the case by destroying the relevant files. That
there has been serious financial irregularities in the matter of purchase of
instruments to the tune of crores of rupees cannot be disputed in view of the
two reports of the two Committees.
The
reports, however, did not specify the actual role and responsibility of Dr. Khalilullah
who was the Head of the Hospital and, therefore, it became imperative to find
out the involvement of said Dr. Khalilullah and taking suitable action against
him. It is in this context when the Secretary Medical Shri R.S. Sethi submitted
the proposal, he had suggested the course of action to be taken in the matter
for the approval of the Lt. Governor. Clause V of the said note may be
extracted hereinbelow in extenso:- I would strongly recommend that Dr.Khalilullah
should be placed under suspension or immediately shifted from G.B. Pant Hospital as available evidence shows that he
has played a major role in defrauding that Government. This step would also
facilitate a fair and impartial enquiry/investigation by the Crime Branch. Also,
we may initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty
against him. I am told that a large number of doctors and professors are
reluctant to speak out so long as Dr. Khalilullah continues in G.B. Pant Hospital. In fact, we have to act firmly now
after what has been revealed otherwise we would be sending wrong signals to
other Hospitals/Institutions." Thus the Secretary came to the conclusion
that Dr. Khalilullah had played a major role in defrauding the Government and,
therefore, he should be suspended or immediately shifted from G.B. Pant Hospital which would facilitate a fair and
impartial enquiry/investigation by the Crime C. He had also indicated that
doctors and professors are reluctant to speak so long as Dr. Khalilullah
continues in G.B. Pant Hospital. It also transpires from the note
that before sending proposal he had discussed the matter with the Lt. Governor.
The Chief Secretary Shri Takkar also agreed with the Secretary (Medical) that
it is necessary to remove Dr. Khalilullah from his present position in the
interest of holding a fair and proper enquiry into the scandal but he did not
agree with the suggestion of the Secretary to suspend him and, on the other
hand, he suggested transfer of Dr. Khalilullah from G.B. Pant Hospital. But
when the file was placed before the appellant he did not agree with either of
the suggestions and on the other hand passed orders that until CBI makes a
suggestion after enquiring either for suspending or shifting of Dr. Khalilullah
he cannot be shifted. It is on account of the aforesaid order of the appellant
that Dr. Khalilullah was permitted to continue as the Director of the G.B. Pant Hospital. In the aforesaid premises the role
of the appellant came directly under the scrutiny of the Court when a complaint
was made by the petitioners in the Writ Petition and relief to shift Dr. Khalilullah
from G.B. Pant Hospital was sought for. We are, therefore,
of the view that the role of the appellant came under direct scrutiny of the
Court while deciding the Writ Petition in question.
Mr.
K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel had relied upon the decision of this
Court in State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Naim(1964 (2) SCR 363)
wherein this Court had observed that the Court would not be justified in
passing strictures unless it was necessary for the disposal of the case to
animadvert to those aspects in regard to which the strictures have been passed.
But the aforesaid decision, in our considered opinion is of no assistance to
the appellant in view of our earlier conclusion that the role of the appellant
came under direct scrutiny of the Court to decide the question as to whether
the relief sought for could be granted or not The next question that arises for
consideration is whether the appellant not having been arrayed as a party
respondent and the High Court not having issued any notice to him, was the High
Court entitled to make such serious comments and strictures on the appellant.
There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that no man should be
condemned without having an opportunity of hearing. Mr. Venugopal, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the decisions of this
Court to the effect that when allegations of mala fide are made against a
person then the said person should be impleaded as a party.
The
learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma (1991 (2) SCR 1),
Express Newspaper vs. Union of India(1986 (1) SCC 133), Ashok Kumar Yadav vs.
State of Haryana (1985 (4) SCC 417), A.M. Mathur vs.
Pramod Kumar (1990(2) SCC 533). in the last case as the person concerned who
was the former Advocate General had not been made a party in the Courts below
this Court entertained the Special Leave Petition filed by him and ultimately
disposed of the same on merits. In the case in hand we have also entertained
the Special Leave Petition filed by the Lt. Governor. Mr. Shanti Bhushan,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent also did not raise any
contention with regard to the maintainability of the application. When the
orders passed by the appellant came under scrutiny of the Court and the
circumstances under which the order had been passed would appear from the
relevant discussion made by the different officers and the Court was examining
the reasonableness and propriety of the orders passed by the appellant, any
comments made by the Court without issuing notice to the appellant cannot be
ipso facto expunged merely on the ground that the appellant had no opportunity
of hearing. That apart the appellant has now approached this Court and apart
from raising the legal contentions that the High Court did not issue any notice
to him he has the full opportunity of indicating the circumstances under which
he passed the order and those circumstances are now being scrutinized by this
Court. In this view of the matter we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree
with the submissions made by Mr. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant that the remarks and the strictures given by the Court should
be expunged on the sole ground that the appellant had not been given notice nor
he had any opportunity of hearing before the High Court.
In
course of his arguments Mr. Venugopal, learned senior counsel had advanced
another reasoning in support of his prayer for expunction of the strictures
made by the High Court, the same being that the notings in the departmental
files should not be examined by the Court and on such notings the Court would
not be entitled to comment upon the conduct of the officer who had submitted
the notes. He further submitted that the basis of strictures passed by the High
Court being the notes of the Secretary Health and Chief Secretary which was not
agreed to by the Lt. Governor, the High Court was wholly unjustified in issuing
the strictures in question. In support of this contention the learned counsel
relied upon the decisions of this Court in Puranjit Singh vs. Union Territory
of Chandigarh and others (1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 471), State of Bihar vs. Kripalu Shankar
(1987 (3) SCC 34) and Sarwan Singh Lamba vs. Union of India(1995 (4) SCC 546
(CB). But the ratio of the aforesaid cases has to be understood in the relevant
facts of the case and it cannot be of universal application. Where the relevant
departmental files were produced before the Court by the government and the
Court on scrutiny of the same came to the conclusion that the decision has not
been taken fairly, then the Court would be entitled to comment on the role of
such person who took the decision. As has been indicated earlier Dr. Khalilullah
was continuing as the Director of the G.B.
Pant Hospital notwithstanding different Enquiry Committees as well as the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India had pointed out gross financial irregularities in the matter of
purchase in the hospital in question. The Writ Petition had been filed in the
Public interest for a direction that investigations be made by an appropriate
Investigating Agency and action should be taken against the Director and he
should be shifted from the place immediately. It is in this context that when
the relevant file was produced indicating therein that the appellant who is the
final authority in the matter had passed orders not to disturb said Dr. Khalilullah
until CBI after enquiry recommends for his shifting, the said order together
with all the antecedent orders of the subordinate authority was scrutinized by
the Court. In such circumstances if the contention of Mr. Venugopal is accepted
then no administrative authority and his conduct would come under the judicial
scrutiny of the Court. That an administrative order is subjected to judicial
review is by now the settled position and no longer remains res integra. This
being the position we fail to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Venugopal that
the notings in the file or the orders passed by the Secretary and Chief
Secretary as well as the Governor should not have formed the basis of the
strictures passed against the appellant.
Then
the most crucial question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case the Court was justified in passing the strictures
which have already been enumerated, and if not, then whether this Court would
be entitled to expunge the same. The power to expunge any remark made by a Court
in a judgment is an extraordinary power and can be exercised only when a clear
case is made out. It is also a cardinal principle that a judge should take
special care in making disparaging remark against a person or authority whose
conduct comes in for consideration before him in any case to be decided by him
and should not make any uncalled for remarks which would be against the
judicial discipline. If the relief sought for can be given to the applicant
without dubbing the conduct of the person concerned to be mala fide then the
Court should refrain from coming to any conclusion on mere assertions in as
much as the allegations of mala fides have to be specifically made and would
have to be established by the person who seeks relief on that ground. To avoid
harsh words and intemperate language and to have self-restraint is a part of
judicial training of a judge and, therefore, a judge should be extremely
careful while commenting upon the conduct of another individual particularly
when that individual is not before the Court. Bearing in mind the aforesaid
principle we would now examine the strictures made by the Court against the
appellant Mr. Dave.
At the
outset we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion on going through the
notes of the Secretary Health and modified by the Chief Secretary as well as
the order of the appellant Shri Dave that the said order cannot be said to be
reasonably arrived at by a man with vast administrative experience. The
operative part of the order of the appellant indicates that he was not willing
to agree with the suggestion of the Chief Secretary even to transfer Dr. Khalilullah
from his position as Director of G.B. Pant Hospital so as to have a fair and
proper enquiry solely because of the fact that Dr. Khalilullah happens to be a
nationally recognized specialist and had been honoured with Padma Shree and Padma
Bhushan. It is the common administrative practice that no enquiry into the
conduct of the Head of an Organization can be impartially made so long he is
allowed to continue as the Head of the Organization.
In the
case in hand the notes of the Secretary clearly indicated that several
important files have been destroyed in the meantime and the doctors and other
employees of the hospital are reluctant to speak against Dr. Khalilullah so
long as he continues as the Director of the Hospital. The Chief Secretary
having considered the notes of the Secretary had, therefore, suggested that Dr.
Khaliluilah should be transferred from his position in the interest of holding
a fair and proper enquiry into the scandal. We are afraid, that if a nationally
recognized specialist having been honoured with Padma Shree and Padma Bhushan
gets involved in financial irregularities and an enquiry becomes imperative
then administrative exigencies did require for his shifting from the place.
The
order of the appellant not to shift him solely because he was a doctor of
national repute and certain awards have been given to him does not reflect the
consideration of the kinds of good administration. It is in this context the
last part of the order of the Lt. Governor assumes great significance which may
be quoted in extenso :- " I have explained the facts of the case and my
decision to Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and requested him to assist
us in convincing the CBI to take up the case expeditiously." The
chronology of events would indicate that the Gupta Committee report indicating
large scale financial irregularities in the matter of purchase in the hospital
was given in October 1993. The Health Secretary to the Government of Delhi
Administration discussed the matter with the Lt. Governor and then put up his
notes with suggestions for approval of the Chief Secretary and the Lt. Governor
on 16.11.93. The Chief Secretary though did not approve of the suggestion of
the Secretary to suspend Dr. Khalilullah but agreed with the alternative
suggestion to transfer Dr. Khalilullan for enabling the Investigating Agency to
hold a fair and impartial enquiry into the scandal. The Lt. Governor, however, disapproved
the suggestion of the Chief Secretary and held that no action need be taken.
The High Court, therefore, was confronted with the question as to whether the
Lt. Governor properly applied his mind to all the relevant aspects and whether
ultimate decision was honest, uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration. It
may be noticed that immediately after the Secretary (Medical) Shri R.S. Sethi
put up his notes dated 16th of November, 1993, suggesting suspension of Dr. Khalilullah
or atleast his shifting from the G.B. Pant Hospital Shri Amar Nath Verma,
Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister directed the Special Secretary Shri Satyam
in the Ministry of Home Affairs to pre-empt the Delhi Administration from
taking any action against Dr. Khalilullah and the Special Secretary then talked
to Shri Sethi, the Secretary (Medical) as well as Shri R.K. Takker, Chief
Secretary. Telephonic discussion of Shri Verma, Principal Secretary to the
Prime Minister and Shri Satyam, the Special Secretary to the Ministry of Home
Affairs was on 19th
November, 1993 on
which date the file had left the table of the Secretary Health and had reached
the Chief Secretary. Shri Verma had not chosen to put anything on record as to
where from he could learn about the proposed action suggested by the Secretary Shri
Sethi. Said Shri Verma not being satisfied with the telephonic discussion he
had with Shri Satyam on the 19th, called him again on 20th November, 1993 and directed him to advise the
Delhi Administration in writing so that no action should be taken in the case. Shri
Satyam, therefore, telephonically apprised the Lt. Governor and sent a D.O.
letter to the Chief Secretary. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the
appellant did not take the decision of his own but on the other hand was
influenced by the instruction of Shri Verma the Principal Secretary to the
Prime Minister. But since Shri Verma's conduct is not directly under our
scrutiny in the present case we do not think it necessary to focus our
attention on that any more. Suffice it to say that it is because of the
instruction of Shri Verma that the appellant passed the order not even to shift
Dr. Khalilullah and in his order also indicated that he had explained the facts
to Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. In the aforesaid premises it is
difficult for us to accept the submission of Shri Venugopal, learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the decision was his own and not on any
extraneous consideration. The High Court, therefore did not commit any error in
coming to the conclusion about the impropriety of the decision and in fact it
was influenced by someone else.
Therefore,
the strictures mentioned in 'd' sought to be expunged has been justifiably made
and no case for expunction has been made out, but the word 'dictated' is
probably not appropriate. We accordingly modify the same by replacing the word
'dictated' by 'influenced'.
Coming
to the stricture 'a' we, however, find the materials on record do not justify
to dub the decision of the Governor as mala fide and we, therefore, direct
expunction of the word 'and mala fides' after the word 'arbitrariness' from the
stricture 'a'.
So far
as the stricture 'b' is concerned in our considered opinion, it was not
necessary for the Court to hold that the Lt. Governor abused his power though
the Court was justified in holding that the Governor acted in an arbitrary and
unreasonable manner. As has been stated earlier the Court should refrain from
using intemperate language as part of judicial discipline while examining the role
and conduct of high constitutional functionaries. In the circumstances, we
direct that the expression 'abused his power' be expunged from stricture 'b'.
So far
as stricture 'c' is concerned we see nothing therein which can be said to be
objectionable and, therefore, the prayer for expunction stands rejected.
With
the aforesaid observations the appeal stands disposed of.
Back
Pages: 1 2