Mohanprasad Tripathy Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
[2006] Insc 336 (23 May 2006)
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN
& LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Dr.AR.Lakshmanan,
J.
Heard
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Maharashtra. Since respondent Nos.2 to 15 are
not apparently interested in contesting these appeals, notice of lodgment of
petition of these appeals were ordered to be issued only to respondent No.1 for
hearing.
The
present appeals are directed against the order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur against the judgment and final order
dt.25.09.2003 in Civil Application No.3778 of 2003 in Writ Petition No.2564 of
2002 and the judgment and final order dt.24.11.2003 passed in Civil Application
No.6770 of 2003 in Civil Application No.3778 of 2003 in the same Writ Petition
whereby the High Court finally dismissed both the aforesaid applications of the
petitioner therein who is the appellant in these two appeals.
The
Writ Petition No.2564 of 2002 was filed by the petitioners as Public Interest
Litigation. According to the appellant, he is associated with various social organisations
and devoted to the cause of the poor and needy persons and fighting against the
evils of corruption. He filed the above Writ Petition for an enquiry into the
affairs in the episode of mustering support for the trust motion concluded on
13.06.2002 in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly in favour of
respondent No.5 (Mr.Vilasrao Deshmukh), the then Chief Minister of the State of
Maharashtra.
The
High Court vide order dt.24.07.2002 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of
Rs.1 lac within a period of four weeks otherwise the Writ Petition would be
dismissed without reference to the Court. It is beneficial in this context to
reproduce the order passed by the High Court on 24.07.2002 which is as under :-
"Matter is not on board.
Mentioned.
This
is a public interest Litigation filed by the Petitioners seeking various
directions from this court and an order for enquiry into the affairs which took
place at the time of motion taken out in the Legislative Assembly to repose
Trust in favour of the Chief Minister.
We
direct the Petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.one lakh within a period of four
weeks. On such amount being deposited, this Court would taken up the matter for
admission otherwise it would be dismissed without reference to the Court.
It is
made clear that no extension of time for depositing the amount will be
granted." Pursuant to the said order dt.24.07.2002, the appellant on
29.07.2002 deposited an amount of Rs.1 lakh vide C.No.002327. The High Court,
after deposit of the said amount of Rs.1 lakh by the appellant, issued notice
to the respondents vide order dt.05.08.2002.
During
the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the respondent No.5, the then Chief
Minister of Maharashtra, resigned, for inquiry against whom the said Writ
Petition revolved around for mustering support for the trust motion concluded
on 13.06.2002 in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly in favour of
respondent No.5 and, therefore, the said Writ Petition became infructuous. The
appellant filed an application being Civil Application No.3229 of 2003
dt.11.06.2003 for permission to withdraw the said Writ Petition and for further
permission to withdraw the amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited vide C.No.002327
dt.29.07.2002.
The
said application is marked as Annexure P-3 in these appeals. It is stated in
the said application that the Chief Minister himself had resigned from the post
of Chief Minister and thus the prayer in the Writ Petition for inquiry against
him became infructuous and, therefore, the appellant do not want to prosecute
the petition further and, therefore, sought for withdrawal of the same. A prayer
for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1 lakh which was deposited by the appellant
was also made.
The
High Court vide order dt.13.06.2003 dismissed the said Writ Petition as infructuous
as the cause of action in the said Writ Petition has come to an end. However,
the High Court dismissed the Civil Application No.3229 of 2003 directing the
appellant to file a separate application for withdrawal of the said amount of
Rs.1 lakh deposited by him in the court pursuant to the order dt.24.07.2002.
The appellant thereafter filed the Civil application No.3778 of 2003 for
permission to withdraw the said amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited by him. The said
Civil Application No.3778 of 2003 was listed for hearing on 11.08.2003. The
High Court adjourned the matter for filing additional affidavit disclosing
therein the source from which the appellant collected the said amount of Rs.1 lakh
for depositing the same in the court. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant
filed an affidavit on 23.08.2003 giving details of the sources through which
the said amount was generated for depositing in the Court. The High Court,
however, was not satisfied with the said affidavit and vide order dt.02.08.2003
directed the appellant to file proper affidavit disclosing the the exact source
of the said amount of Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter, the appellant filed another
affidavit on 24.09.2003 giving details of the amount collected through various
sources. The first affidavit is marked as Annexure P-7 and the second affidavit
marked as Annexure P-8 reads as under :- "2. I say and submit that in an
affidavit dated 23/08/2003 I have already explained regarding
my financial status. I have made categorical statement in the said affidavit
that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) deposited in the Court
on 29/07/2002 was the amount generated from various sources like pension, post
retirement benefits, income received by me and by my wife from the business of
publication of newspaper, agricultural income, rental income and the amount of
compensation received by us because of death of my son and cash credit facility
of Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited. I say, submit, assert and reiterate that the
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) deposited in the Court on 29/07/2002 was the amount generated from the aforesaid sources.
Because of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) deposited in the Court on 29/07/2002 was from a particular individual source.
3.However,
as I can gather, on the said date I arranged the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) required to be deposited in the Court in the following
manner.
(i)Cash
of around Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) was available in our office
of M/s.Public Parliament. Generally the cash is maintained in our office for
the purchases like newsprint,payment to be made to the parties etc. In our
business we generally receive cash from our agents, hawkers and customers.
(ii)
Cash of around Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) was available in
my house with my wife.
(iii)
Remaining cash of around Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) was
arranged." The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order
dt.25.09.2003 dismissed the application of the appellant refusing permission to
withdraw the said amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited by the appellant in the High
Court. The appellant again filed an application for reviewing the order
dt.25.09.2003 which was also dismissed.
According
to the learned counsel for the appellant, the High Court has neither considered
the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of the appellant nor did
consider the contention and affidavit dt.24.09.2003 in respect of disclosure of
source of amount of Rs.1 lakh. We have also extracted the second affidavit
filed by the appellant in the High Court and the said affidavit is
self-explanatory. The appellant has also stated that the Chartered Accountant
on production of books of account as demanded by the Chartered Accountant,
examined the books of account and the cash account produced by the appellant,
issued the Certificate dt.23.10.2003 to the effect that the appellant had cash
in hand of Rs.1,23,293/- as on 27.07.2002 out of which the appellant had
withdrawn Rs.60,000/- on 28.07.2002 for court purposes as per the voucher
produced.
The
High Court in its order dt.25.09.2003 has clearly observed that the cause of
action of the Writ Petition had come to an end and, therefore, no fruitful
purpose was to be served by keeping the petition pending. Having observed that
the Writ Petition has become infructuous, the High Court ought to have ordered
refund of Rs.1 lakh which was ordered to be deposited by the High Court to show
the bonafide of the Public Interest Litigant. The appellant has also filed two
affidavits clearly explaining the source from which amount of Rs.1 lakh came to
be deposited in the High Court. However, the High Court made an observation
that the source explained by the appellant for depositing Rs.1 lakh does not
merit acceptance and they have serious doubt about the source from which Rs.1 lakh
came to be deposited before the High Court. The High Court, in our opinion, has
entered into an unwarranted discussion in regard to the deposit made by the
appellant and the source from which the said amount of Rs.1 lakh came to be
deposited. When a petition was filed for reviewing the earlier order, another
Division Bench of the High Court committed the same error by dismissing the
Petition and did not permit the appellant to withdraw the sum of Rs.1 lakh.
We
have perused the affidavits filed by the appellant herein. No counter affidavit
was filed by any of the respondents disputing the statement made by the
appellant in regard to the deposit made and the source from which the said
deposit was made. The High Court has unnecessarily gone into an unwarranted
controversy and then rendered the finding by rejecting the request of the
appellant for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1 lakh in spite of the dismissal
of the Writ Petition as having become infructuous. The High Court has also not
ordered the payment of Rs.1 lakh to any person.
Before
us, the State is the only contesting respondent. The other respondents have not
appeared before us.
We are
of the opinion that the two orders passed by the High Court rejecting the
prayer of the appellant herein is not correct and is liable to be interfered
with. We, therefore, have no hesitation to set aside the orders passed by the
High Court in the Civil Applications. The Registry of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur is directed to refund the sum of
Rs.1 lakh forthwith to the appellant. If the amount is deposited in any bank,
the appellant shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh together with the interest accrued
thereon.
The
appeals are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Back