State of Maharashtra
& Ors. Vs Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & ANR.
J U D G M E N T
GANGULY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts of each
case, which come up to this Court and especially those which are heard at
length as appeals, have a message to convey. The message conveyed in this case
is extremely shocking and it shocks the conscience of this Court about the
manner in which the Constitutional functionaries behaved in the State of
Maharashtra.
3. A writ petition
was filed before Bombay High Court by Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan - the
first respondent in this appeal. He described himself as an agriculturist by
profession. The allegation in the writ petition is of illegal money lending against
the second respondent to the extent of charging 10% interest per month on the
money lent.
4. In view of such
exorbitant interest being charged and the illegalities which are alleged be
committed in the recovery of such loan, certain complaints were filed against
the second respondent and in the writ petition it is stated that as many as 34 complaints
were registered against the second respondent till 28.6.2006.
5. It was also
averred in the writ petition that nearly 300 farmers have committed suicide in Vidarbha
region of Maharashtra as victims of such illegal money lending business and the
torture perpetrated in the recovery of such money. A complaint has been made
that the farmers do not get the benefit of various packages announced by the
Government and the State machinery is ruthless against the farmers. The cause
of action for filing the writ petition is the order of Collector in the District
of Buldhana (hereinafter "Collector") directing not to register any
crime against Mr. Gokulchand Sananda, the second respondent herein, without
obtaining clearance from the District Anti Money Lending Committee and also without
obtaining legal opinion of the District Government Pleader. It appears that
the said order was passed by the Collector in view of the instructions given to
him by the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. It has been alleged in the
petition that there are several complaints and the number of such complaints is
about 50 against Sananda and his family members who are carrying on money
lending business and the cases cannot be registered against them in view of the
instructions given by the then Chief Minister.
6. In order to understand
the seriousness of the situation, it will be appropriate in the fitness of things,
to set out the order dated 5.6.2006 of the Collector, Buldhana to the District
Superintendent of Police, Buldhana: "To District Superintendent of Police Buldhana
Sub: Regarding complaints against illegal money lending against MLA Dilipkumar Sananda
and his family members. Ref: instructions given by Hon'ble Chief Minister in
meeting dated 1.6.2006. On the above mentioned subject, detailed discussion
took place at the residence of Hon'ble Chief Minister on 1.6.2006. In the said meeting,
MLA Dilipkumar Sananda complained that deliberately by raising false allegations,
against his family members, complaints regarding illegal money lending are being
filed and without scrutinizing truthfulness of the said complaints, offences are
being registered. In respect of said grievance, Hon'ble Chief Minister has
taken serious note and given order that `if any such complaint is received then
before registration of offence against MLA Dilipkumar Sananda and his family
members, said matter/complaint be placed for decision before District
Anti-Money Lending Committee and said Committee should obtain legal opinion of
District Government Pleader and then only take decision on the same and take appropriate
legal action accordingly'. You are informed that as per the instructions of Hon'ble
Chief Minister, matters against Sananda family be handled as per the provisions
of Money Lending Prevention Act."
7. It may be noticed that
prior to the aforesaid discussion which the Collector had at the residence of
the Chief Minister on 1.6.2006 in which meeting Mr. Dilipkumar Sananda, local MLA
was present, something happened in the Police Station, Khamgaon City, District Buldhana
on 31.5.2006. The said station diary shows that Mr. Padwal, P.S. to the Chief Minister
telephoned twice to enquire about "the information regarding the
offence" registered against Sananda and the Section under which the case
has been registered. The second phone call as recorded in Station Diary shows that
Mr. Padwal directed that no action should be taken as instructed by the Chief Minster
and no offence should be registered. The text of the station diary dated
31.5.2006 is set out:
"Station Diary Police
Station Khamgaon City, District Buldhana,dated 31.5.2006
|
Station
Time Diary Entry No.
|
Summary
of the Entry
|
Particulars
of Entry
|
|
26
|
13.15
Phone hrs. from PS to Hon. CM
|
At
this time, Mr. Padwal, PS to Hon'ble Chief Minister, MS dialed and enquired
about the information regarding offence registered against Sananda; we
informed that offence is registered at 12.15 hrs.
|
|
27
|
13.25
Phone hrs. from PS to Hon. CM
|
At
this time, Mr. Padwal enquired about facts of the offence registered,
sections applied; then we informed them about sections applied to the said registered
offence, then he told that henceforth no action be taken as instructed by Hon'ble
CM and further said that again no other offences be registered.
|
Sd/-
Police
Inspector
Khamgaon
City Police Station
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
On
the writ petition being filed challenging the aforesaid two communications, namely,
the communication made by the P.S. to the Chief Minister vide the Station diary
entry which is set out above and the order of Collector on the direction of the
Chief Minister, the High Court in the impugned judgment allowed the writ
petition. The High Court, inter alia, held that the directions of the Chief Minister
in the telephonic message was proved by the communication of the Collector
dated 5.6.2006 and the High Court held that such telephonic communication was
made at the behest of Gokulchand Sananda, the second respondent herein. The High
Court after examining the provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Act and also
the materials on record held that the letter dated 5.6.2006 and the telephonic message
recorded in the Station diary entry exhibit gross abuse of power by the
concerned authority and struck down both the communications.
9.
The
High Court, however, recorded that on the complaint filed by the writ
petitioner - the first respondent herein, a charge sheet was filed for offences
under Sections 341, 342, 363, 392, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 32B of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. The criminal case
is pending. The High Court also observed that they are not aware how many
instances of illegal money lending do exist. The High Court expressed a hope
that power of the Executive will not be abused in the manner in which it has
been done in this case. The High Court, quashed the Collector's order and allowed
the writ petition awarding costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the State
Government.
10.
However,
the State of Maharashtra did not accept the judgment of the High Court and challenged
the same before this Court by filing a special leave petition out of which the
present appeal arises. 7
11.
From
the affidavit which was filed by the Collector before the High Court, it appears
that the Collector has admitted that in Vidarbha region in Buldhana District
the farmers committed suicide for various reasons and especially for the loan
burden coupled with the fact that there was irregular rain fall.
12.
The
Collector admitted in paragraph (3) of the affidavit that on the complaint of
Sananda before the Chief Minister about cases being registered against him and his
family members without investigation, the Chief Minister called the Collector
at Mumbai and gave the instructions quoted above and thereupon the Collector conveyed
the message of the Chief Minister to the Superintendent of Police, Buldhana. However,
the Collector took a stand that by doing so he has not committed any illegality.
13.
In
the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Buldhana before the High Court,
he admits that there are five cases already registered against the family members
of Sananda under the Bombay Money Lenders Act and he has given details of those
cases in his affidavit. He also submitted that on 31.5.2006 an offence came to
be registered at police station, Khamgaon (T) on the complaint made by Shri
Rajesh Shankar Kawadkar under Sections 341, 366, 392 read with Section 34 IPC
and under Section 32(b) and 33of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. He also admits
to have received instructions from the Collector by the Collector's order dated
5.6.2006 about the Collector's meeting with the then Chief Minister of the
Maharashtra and also about the manner in which the police has to deal with the
complaints against Dilip Kumar Sananda and his family members. He further averred
in his affidavit that by letter dated 9.6.2006 the Superintendent of Police
conveyed that as per Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code cognizable
complaints are to be registered without undue delay. However, on receipt of the
said letter the Collector sent his letter dated 14.6.2006stating therein that
under Section 36 of the Cr.P.C. the State Government can direct a senior police
officer to take cognizance of the offence also.
14.
In
the course of hearing of this case, this Court by an order dated 11th February 2010
directed the learned counsel for the appellant to file an affidavit on the
following points:
"1. The number
of cases involving complaints against respondent No.2 and/or his family
members. 2. The number of cases in which FIR have been registered against
respondent No.2 and/or his family members. 3. The number of cases in which instructions
like the one contained in letter dated 05.06.2006 of District Collector,
Buldhana were or have been given by Hon'ble the Chief Minister or any other
functionary or authority of the State Government."
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Pursuant
thereto an additional affidavit was filed by one Ambadas, Assistant Police
Inspector, posted to P.S. Khamgaon Gramin, District Buldhana, Maharashtra to
the effect that 34 complaints were received in different police stations in
Buldhana District against the members of Sananda family. In the affidavit it was
also stated that in seven complaints chargesheets have been filed and the same are
pending before different Courts below. In respect of other complaints the
complainants have either settled their disputes or have withdrawn their
complaints. It was also stated that not a single person including any member of
the complainant's family has committed suicide in view of dispute over money
lending by Sananda family. This averment was, however, not necessary in terms of
the order dated 11.2.10.
16.
The
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent raised a contention that the
so called District Anti-money Lending Committee is not statutory. This Court
has looked into the resolution dated 19th October 2005 which purports to
constitute the said committee and this Court finds that the said committee has
not been constituted in exercise of any statutory power and the said committee consists
of the following persons:
"1. District Collector
of the concerned District - President
2. District Superintendent
of Police - Member
3. District Registrar,
Cooperative Society - Member Secretary."
17.
This
Court, therefore, finds that the contention of the learned counsel for the first
respondent is correct and so far as the said committee is concerned it is not a
statutory body.
18.
Since,
the learned counsel for the first respondent was arguing on the propriety of
directions given by the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra and also on the
propriety of Chief Minister's Personal Secretary making telephone calls to the
police station and giving instructions as to how complaints should be registered
against the family of the second respondent, this Court thought that the then
Chief Minister of Maharashtra, who was initially not a party to this
proceeding, should be impleaded and be given a chance to make his
representation before the Court. Therefore, this Court by an order dated 31st March
2010, gave notice to the then Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra, presently
Union Minister, Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India and
directed service of the entire paper book of Special Leave Petition on him in
order to enable him to file an affidavit in the context of the letter dated 5th
June 2006 sent by the Collector to the District Superintendent of the Police,
Buldhana.
19.
Pursuant
to the said notice an affidavit was filed by Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh, the then
Chief Minister of Maharashtra. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit the content
of the letter of the Collector dated 5.6.06 was not denied. Nor was it denied
that on 31.5.06, his Private Secretary made two telephone calls to the concerned
Police Station enquiring about cases registered against Sananda. However, in the
said affidavit Mr. Deshmukh stated that he never interfered with any pending
investigation against the family of Sananda and he further stated that investigation
was conducted and the chargesheet was filed.
20.
Considering
the entire matter in its proper perspective, this Court is of the view that the
way interference was caused first from the office of the Chief Minister by his Private
Secretary by two telephone calls on 31.5.2006 and the manner in which District Collector
was summoned by the Chief Minister on the very next day i.e. 1.6.2006 for giving
instructions to specially treat any complaints filed against M.L.A. Mr. Dilip Kumar
Sananda and his family has no precedent either in law or in public
administration.
21.
The
legal position is well settled that on information being lodged with the police
and if the said information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence,
the police shall record the same in accordance with the provisions contained
under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Police Officer's power to investigate
in case of a cognizable offence without order of the Magistrate is statutorily
recognised under Section 156 of Code. Thus the police officer in charge of a police
station, on the basis of information received or otherwise, can start investigation
if he has reasons to suspect the commission of any cognizable offence.
22.
This
is subject to the provisos (a) and (b) to Section 157 of the Code which leaves
discretion with the police officer-in-charge of police station to consider if
the information is not of a serious nature, he may depute a subordinate officer
to investigate and if it appears to the officer-in- charge that there does not
exist sufficient ground, he shall not investigate.
23.
This
legal framework is a very vital component of the Rule of Law in order to ensure
prompt investigation in cognizable cases and to maintain law and order.
24.
Law
does not accord any special treatment to any person in respect of any complaint
having been filed against him when it discloses the commission of any cognizable
offence. In the context of this clear legal position which, as noted above, is
a vital component of a Rule of Law, the direction of the then Chief Minister to
give a special treatment to Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, M.L.A and his family about
registering of complaint filed against them is totally unwarranted in law. Mr.
Vilasrao Deshmukh as the Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra is expected to know
that the farmers of the State specially those in the Vidarbha region are going through
a great deal of suffering and hardship in the hands of money lenders.
25.
It
is not in dispute that members of the family of Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, a
Member of Legislative Assembly, are engaged in money lending business and various
complaints have been lodged against the members of such family.
26.
From
the affidavit filed by Shri Ambadas it is clear that 34 cases were filed
against that family in respect of allegation of money lending.
27.
From
the communication of the Collector containing the instructions of the then
Chief Minister, Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh, it is clear that the Chief Minister was
aware of various complaints being filed against the said family. Even then he
passed an order for a special treatment in favour of the said family which is
unknown to law. This was obviously done to protect the Sananda family from the
normal legal process and a special procedure was directed to be adopted in
respect of criminal complaint filed against them. In other words, the Chief
Minister wanted to give the members of the said family a special protection
which is not available to other similarly placed persons. It is clear from the Collector's
order dated 5.6.2006 where the Chief Minister's instructions were quoted that
the Chief Minister was acting solely on political consideration to screen the
family of M.L.A from the normal process of law.
28.
As
Judges of this Court, it is our paramount duty to maintain the Rule of Law and the
Constitutional norms of equal protection.
29.
We
cannot shut our eyes to the stark realities. From the National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB), it is clear that close to two lakh farmers committed suicide in India
between 1997 and 2008. This is the largest sustained wave of suicides ever
recorded in human history. Two thirds of the two lakh suicides took place in
five states and those five states are Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Even though Maharashtra is one of the richest state
in the country and in its capital Mumbai twenty five thousand of India's one lakh
dollar millionaires reside, the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, in which is
situated Buldhana, is today the worst place in the whole country for farmers.
Professor K. Nagraj of the Madras Institute of Development Studies who carried
on a research in this area has categorized that Maharashtra could be called the
graveyard of farmers.
30.
The
position is so pathetic in Vidarbha region that families are holding funerals
and weddings at the same time and some time on the same day. In a moving show
of solidarity poor villagers are accumulating their money and labour to conduct
marriages and funerals of their poor neighbours. (See the report in Hindu dated
22nd May 2006).
31.
This
being the ground reality, as the Chief Minister of the State and as holding a
position of great responsibility as a high constitutional functionary, Mr. Vilasrao
Deshmukh certainly acted beyond all legal norms by giving the impugned
directions to the Collector to protect members of a particular family who are
dealing in money lending business from the normal process of law. This amounts
to bestowing special favour to some chosen few at the cost of the vast number
of poor people who as farmers have taken loans and who have come to the
authorities of law and order to register their complaints against torture and
atrocities by the money lenders. The instructions of the Chief Minister will
certainly impede their access to legal redress and bring about a failure of the
due process.
32.
The
aforesaid action of the Chief Minister is completely contrary to and inconsistent
with the constitutional promise of equality and also the preambular resolve of
social and economic justice. As a Chief Minister of the State Mr. Deshmukh has taken
a solemn of oath of allegiance to the Constitution but the directions which he
gave are wholly unconstitutional and seek to subvert the constitutional norms
of equality and social justice.
33.
The
argument that some of the cases in which complaints were filed against the
family of Sananda, were investigated and chargesheets were filed, is a poor
consolation and does not justify the issuing of the wholly unauthorised and unconstitutional
instructions to the Collector. It is not known to us in how many cases
investigation has been totally scuttled in view of the impugned directions.
Records disclosed in this case show that out of 74 cases only in seven cases
charge sheets were filed and the rest of the cases were either compromised or withdrawn.
How can poor farmers sustain their complaint in the face of such directions and
how can the subordinate police officers carry on investigation ignoring such instructions
of the Chief Minister? Therefore, the instructions of the Chief Minister have
completely subverted the Rule of Law.
34.
Dr.
Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh relied on a
decision of this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2008 (14) SCC 337.
35.
In
Lalita Kumari (supra), a Bench of this Court did not lay down any law. The
Bench merely noted that there is a divergence of views between different Benches
of this court on the issue whether upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable
offence, it is imperative for the police officer to register a case or
discretion still lies with him to make some kind of a preliminary enquiry before
registering the same. The Bench having noted the divergence of views on the aforesaid
question referred the matter to a larger Bench.
36.
We
fail to appreciate the relevance of the aforesaid decision to the disputes
involved in the present case.
37.
In
Lalita Kumari (supra), there was no instruction by any Chief Minister or any
executive authority to give a special treatment to any group of persons in the
matter of registration of criminal cases against them. Therefore, the opinion in
Lalita Kumari (supra) does not in any way justify the instruction given by Mr.
Vilasrao Deshmukh.
38.
This
Court is extremely anguished to see that such an instruction could come from
the Chief Minister of a State which is governed under a Constitution which resolves
to constitute India into a socialist, secular, democratic republic. Chief Minister's
instructions are so incongruous and anachronistic, being in defiance of all
logic and reason, that our conscience is deeply disturbed. We condemn the same in
no uncertain terms.
39.
We
affirm the order of the High Court and direct that the instruction of the Chief
Minister to the Collector dated 5.6.06 has no warrant in law and is unconstitutional
and is quashed. We dismiss this appeal with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs) to be paid by the appellant in favour of the Maharashtra State Legal Services
Authority. This fund shall be earmarked by the Authority to help the cases of
poor farmers. Such costs should be paid within a period of six weeks from date.
.....................J.
(G.S. SINGHVI)
.....................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New
Delhi
December
14, 2010
State of Maharashtra
and others Vs Sarabgdhar Singh Shivdas Sing Chavan and another
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1.
I
have gone through the judgment prepared by my esteemed brother Justice Asok
Kumar Ganguly. I agree with him that the appeal deserves to be dismissed with
costs but would like to separately record my views on the crucial issue of
ministerial interference in the functioning of the authorities entrusted with
the task of enforcing the laws enacted by the legislature.
2.
The
Constituent Assembly which comprised of eminent people drawn from different
walks of life debated for more than two years, examined the constitutions of
several countries and prepared the document, which was adopted as "the
Constitution of India". The Preamble to the Constitution, as it stands
after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, reads thus:
"We, the people
of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign
Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE,
social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression belief, faith
and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity and to promote among them
all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and
integrity of the Nation."
3.
Though
each of XXII Parts of the Constitution has its own significance, the common man
is by and large concerned with Parts III, IV and IV-A, the last having been
added by the Forty-second Amendment Act,1976. Part-III of the Constitution
enumerates various fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens and even
non-citizens. The provisions of Part-IV contain directive principles of State
policy which are fundamental for the governance of the country. The State has
been obligated to enact laws for improving the lot of the weaker sections of
the society and the rural population so that the goals of social justice and
equality can be achieved.
4.
By
incorporating Part IVA in the Constitution, the Parliament has emphasized what
is obvious, that is, every citizen must do his duty to wards the nation as well
as the fellow citizens because unless everyone does his duty, it is not
possible to achieve the goals of equality and justice enshrined in the
Preamble. Article 51A enjoins upon every citizen to abide by the Constitution
and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National
Anthem; to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national
struggle for freedom; to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and
integrity of India; to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood
amongst all the people irrespective of religion, language, region etc. and to
renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; to value and preserve
the rich heritage of our composite culture; to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion
for living creatures; to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit
of inquiry and reform; to safeguard public property and to abjure violence; and
to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective
activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of end eavour and
achievement. What has been incorporated in the form of Part IV-A was implicit
in the Preamble, Part III and Part-IV of the Constitution because fundamental
rights of the citizens can become meaningful only if the State and citizens do
their duty to bring about real equality amongst the people belonging to
different segments of the Society.
5.
Part
IV-A of the Constitution was enacted with a fond hope that every citizen will
honestly play his role in building of a homogeneous society in which every
Indian will be able to live with dignity without having to bother about the
basics like food, clothing, shelter, education, medical aid and the nation will
constantly march forward and will take its place of pride in the comity of
nations. However, what has happened in last few decades has given rise to
serious apprehensions whether we will be able to achieve the objectives which
were in the mind of the makers of the Constitution. The gap between 'haves' and
'haves not' of the society which existed even in pre-independent India has
widened to such an extent that it may take many decades before even a token
equality is restored. A small fraction of the population has evolved a new
value system which is totally incompatible with the values and ideals cherished
by the Indian society for centuries together. They believe in achieving their
goals without regard to purity of the means.
6.
Under
the Constitution, the executive power of the State vests in the Governor and is
required to be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate
to him in accordance with the Constitution [Article154(1)]. Article 163
mandates that there shall be Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as
the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions,
except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his
functions or any of them in his discretion. Article164 lays down that the Chief
Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be
appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Minister
shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Article 164(3) lays down
that the Governor shall before a Minister enters upon his office, administer to
him the oath of office and secrecy according to the form set out in the Third
Schedule, in terms of which, the Minister is required to take oath that he
shall discharge his duties in accordance with the Constitution and the law without
fear or favour, affection or ill will. However, the cases involving pervasive
misuse of public office for private gains, which have come to light in last few
decades tend to shake the peoples' confidence and one is constrained to think
that India has freed itself from British colonialism only to come in the grip
of a new class, which tries to rule on the same colonial principles. Some members
of the political class who are entrusted with greater responsibilities and who
take oath to do their duties in accordance with the Constitution and the law
without fear or favour, affection or ill will, have by their acts and omissions
demonstrated that they have no respect for system based on rule of law.
7.
The
judgment of the Constitution Bench in C.S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1964) 6 SCR 330 is an illustration of the misuse of public office by the Chief
Minister for political gain. The schemes framed by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for nationalization
of motor transport in certain areas of Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh were
challenged by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
High Court repelled the challenge to the validity of the schemes and also
negatived the argument that the same were vitiated due to mala fides of the
then Chief Minister of the State. This Court allowed the appeals and quashed
the scheme and declared that the schemes are invalid and cannot be enforced.
While examining the issue of mala fide exercise of power, the Constitution
Bench stuck a note of caution by observing that allegations of malafides and of
improper motives on the part of those in power are frequently made and some
times without any foundation and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to
scrutinize those allegations with care so as to avoid being in any manner
influenced by them if they are not well founded. The Court then noted that the
scheme was originally framed by the Corporation on the recommendations of Anantharamakrishnan
Committee, but was modified at the asking of the Chief Minister so that his
opponents may be prejudicially affected and proceeded to observe:
"The first
matter which stands out prominently in this connection is the element of time
and the sequence of dates. We have already pointed out that the Corporation had
as late as March 1962 considered the entire subject and had accepted the recommendation
of the Anantharamakrishnan Committee as to the order in which the transport in
the several districts should be nationalised and had set these out in their
Administration Report for the three year period 1958 to 1961.
It must, therefore,
be taken that every factor which the Anantharamakrishnan Committee had
considered relevant and material for determining the order of the districts had
been independently investigated, examined and concurred in, before those
recommendations were approved. It means that up to March-April 1962 a
consideration of all the relevant factors had led the Corporation to a
conclusion identical with that of the Anantharamakrishnan Committee. The next
thing that happened was a conference of the Corporation and its officials with
the Chief Minister on April 19, 1962. The proceedings of the conference are not
on the record nor is there any evidence as to whether any record was made of
what happened at the conference. But we have the statement of the Chief
Minister 30 made on the floor of the State Assembly in which he gave an account
of what transpired between him and the Corporation and its officials. We have
already extracted the relevant portions of that speech from which the following
points emerge:
(1) that the Chief
Minister claimed a right to lay down rules of policy for the guidance of the
Corporation and in fact, the learned Advocate-General submitted to us that
under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Government had a right to
give directions as to policy to the Corporation;
2) that the policy
direction that he gave related to and included the order in which the districts
should be taken up for nationalisation; and
(3) that applying the
criteria that the districts to be nationalised should be contiguous to those in
which nationalised services already existed,
Kurnool answered this
test better than Chittoor and he applying the tests he laid down therefore
suggested that instead of Chittoor, Kurnool should be taken up next. One matter
that emerges from this is that it was as a result of policy decision taken by
the Chief Minister and the direction given to the Corporation that Kurnool was
taken up for nationalisation next after Guntur. It is also to be noticed that
if the direction by the Chief Minister, was a policy decision, the Corporation
was under the law bound to give effect to (vide Section 34 of the Road
Transport Corporation Act, 1950). We are not here concerned with the question
whether a policy decision contemplated by Section 34 of the Road Transport Act
could relate to a matter which under Section 68-C of the Act is left to the
unfettered discretion and judgment of the Corporation, where that is the State undertaking,
or again whether or not the policy decision has to be by a formal Government
Order in writing for what is relevant is whether the materials placed before
the Court establish that the Corporation gave effect to it as a direction which
they were expected to and did obey.
If the Chief Minister
was impelled by motives of personal ill-will against the Road Transport
Operators in the western part of Kurnool and he gave the direction to the
Corporation to change the order of the districts as originally planned by them
and instead take up Kurnool first in order to prejudicially affect his
political opponents, and the Corporation carried out his directions it does not
need much argument to show that the resultant scheme 31 framed by the
Corporation would also be vitiated by mala fides notwithstanding the
interposition of the semi-autonomous Corporation.......
If in these
circumstances the appellants allege that whatever views the Corporation
entertained they were compelled to or gave effect to the wishes of the Chief
Minister, it could not be said that the same is an unreasonable inference from
facts. It is also somewhat remarkable that within a little over two weeks from
this conference by its resolution of May 4, 1962, the Corporation dropped
Nellore altogether, a district which was contiguous to Guntur and proceeded to
take up the nationalisation of the routes of the western part of the Kurnool district
and were able to find reasons for taking the step. It is also worthy of note
that in the resolution of 4th May, 1962, of the Corporation only one reason was
given for preferring Kurnool to Nellore, namely, the existence of a depot at
Kurnool because the other reason given, namely, that Kurnool was contiguous to
an area of nationalised transport equally applied to Nellore and, in fact, this
was one of the criteria on the basis of which the Anantharamakrishnan Committee
itself decided the order of priority among the districts. ............ What the
Court is concerned with and what is relevant to the enquiry in the appeals is
not whether theoretically or on a consideration of the arguments for and
against, now advanced the choice of Kurnool as the next district selected for nationalisation
of transport was wise or improper, but a totally different question whether
this choice of Kurnool was made by the Corporation as required by Section 68-C
or, whether this choice vas in fact and in substance, made by the Chief
Minister, and implemented by him by utilising the machinery of the Corporation
as alleged by the appellants. On the evidence placed in the case we are
satisfied that it was as a result of the conference of April 19, 1962, and in
order to give effect to the wishes of the Chief Minister expressed there, that
the schemes now impugned were formulated by the Corporation." (emphasis
supplied)
In Chandrika Jha v.
State of Bihar (1984) 2 SCC 41, this Court examined the question whether the
Chief Minister of the State could direct extension of the term of the committee
of management of Vaishali District Central Cooperative Bank, Hazipur (for
short, `the Bank'). The Bank was created for the new district, which came into
existence with the bifurcation of the existing district. In exercise of the
power conferred upon him by Bye-law 29, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Bihar nominated a committee of management of 17 members including the appellant
to be the first Board of Directors for a period of six months i.e., up to
December 31,1981 or till further orders, whichever was earlier.
The committee of management
was specifically directed to get the elections of the Board of Directors held
in accordance with the law within six months. The appellant, who was a
political person directly approached the then Chief Minister of the State and
got the term of the first Board of Directors extended from time to time
resulting in postponement of the election of the new board. On29.10.1981, the
then Chief Minister made an endorsement to the Minister (Cooperation) with a
direction that the Registrar should extend the period of the committee of
management for the time being. The Registrar complied with the directive of the
Chief Minister, but ordained the committee of management to call the general
meeting and get the Board of Directors elected within the extended term. In
April 1982, the appellant again got the term extended through the intervention
of the Chief Minister. On 13.4.1983,the appellant addressed another
communication to the Chief Minister for extension of the term of the nominated
Board of Directors for one year.
The Chief Minister
obliged him by extending the term for six months and endorsed the same to the
Minister (Cooperation). The then Chief Minister resigned on 13.8.1983. Thereafter,
the Registrar reconstituted the first Board of Directors in terms of the
direction given by the Minister for Industries. This Court prefaced
consideration of the question of interference by the Chief Minister with the
statutory functions of the Registrar under Bye-law 29 by making the following
observations:
"The case
illustrates an unfortunate trend which has become too common these days in the
governance of the country."The Court then referred to the relevant
statutory provisions and observed: "We fail to appreciate the propriety of
the Chief Minister passing orders for extending the term of the first board of directors.
Under the Cabinet system of Government the Chief Minister occupies a position
of pre-eminence and he virtually carries on the governance of the State.
The Chief Minister
may call for any information which is available to the Minister-in- charge of
any department and may issue necessary directions 34 for carrying on the
general administration of the State Government. Presumably, the Chief Minister
dealt with the question as if it were an executive function of the State Government
and thereby clearly exceeded his powers in usurping the statutory functions of
the Registrar under Bye-Law in extending the term of the first board of
directors from time to time.
The executive power
of the State vested in the Governor under Article 154(1) connotes the residual
or governmental functions that remain after the legislative and judicial
functions are taken away. The executive power includes acts necessary for the
carrying on or supervision of the general administration of the State including
both a decision as to action and the carrying out of the decision. Some of the functions
exercised under "executive powers" may include powers such as the
supervisory jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 65-A of the Act.
The Executive cannot, however, go against the provisions of the Constitution or
of any law. Neither the Chief Minister nor the Minister for Co-operation or Industries
had the power to arrogate to himself the statutory functions of the Registrar
under Bye-Law 29. The act of the then Chief Minister in extending the term of
the committee of management from time to time was not within his power. Such action
was violative of the provisions of the Rules and the bye- laws framed there under.
The Act as amended
from time to time was enacted for the purpose of making the co-operative societies
broad-based and democratizing the institution rather than to allow them to be
monopolized by a few persons. The action of the Chief Minister meant the very negation
of the beneficial measures contemplated by the Act. In Surendra Kumar v. State
of Bihar (1984) 4 SCC 609, this Court referred to an earlier decision in Suman
Gupta v. State of J. & K. AIR1983 SC 1235, wherein the Court had observed
that there is nothing like unfettered discretion of the executive authority to
nominate the candidate for admission to medical course under the reciprocal
arrangement and observed that recommendations made at the instance of the Chief
Minister de hors the merit of the candidates who had applied for admission was
blatant abuse of power by the Chief Minister.
In Shivajirao
Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1SCC 227, the question
considered by this Court was whether the marks awarded to the daughter of the
appellant, who was at the relevant time the Chief Minister of the State of
Maharashtra had been changed at his instance or to please him. The respondent
had challenged the result of the appellant's daughter of MD examination by
alleging that his daughter was shown favour by increasing her marks. The
learned Single Judge, after examining the record produced before him, came to
the conclusion that tampering of the grade-sheets was done by Dr. Rawal at the
behest of respondent Nos.3 and4. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected
the prayer for permission to adduce additional evidence and dismissed the
appeal with an observation that the conclusion arrived at against the appellant
should be treated as merely in the nature of an adverse comment and not a
finding of fact. This Court extensively considered the matter, referred to some
of the precedents and observed:
"There is no
question in this case of giving any clean chit to the appellant in the first
appeal before us. It leaves a great deal of suspicion that tampering was done
to please Shri Patil or at his behest. It is true that there is no direct
evidence. It is also true that there is no evidence to link him up with
tampering. Tampering is established. The relationship is established. The reluctance
to face a public enquiry is also apparent. Apparently Shri Patil, though
holding a public office does not believe that "Caesar's wife must be above
suspicion". The erstwhile Chief Minister in respect of his conduct did not
wish or invite an enquiry to be conducted by a body nominated by the Chief Justice
of the High Court. The facts disclose a sorry state of affairs. Attempt was
made to pass the daughter of the erstwhile Chief Minister, who had failed
thrice before, by tampering the record.
The person who did it
was an employee of the Corporation. It speaks of a sorry state of affairs and
though there is no distinction between comment and a finding and there is no
legal basis for such a comment, we substitute the observations made by the
aforesaid observations as herein. This Court cannot be oblivious that there has
been a steady decline of public standards or public morals and public morale. It
is necessary to cleanse public life in this country along with or even before
cleaning the physical atmosphere. The pollution in our values and standards in
(sic is) an equally grave menace as the pollution of the environment. Where
such situations cry out the courts should not and cannot remain mute and
dumb." (emphasis supplied) In Secretary, J.D.A. v. Daulat Mal Jain (1997)
1 SCC 35, this Court had the occasion to examine allotment of lands to the
respondents by the Minister and the committee headed by the Minister. Some of
the observations made in that decision are quite relevant in the context of the
present case. Therefore, they are quoted below:
"... The
Minister holds public office though he gets constitutional status and performs
functions under constitution, law executive policy. The acts done and duties
performed are public acts or duties as holding of the public office. Therefore,
he owes certain accountability for the acts done or duties performed. In a
democratic society governed by rule of law, power is conferred on the holder of
the public office or the concerned authority by the Constitution by virtue of appointment.
The holder of the office, therefore, gets opportunity to abuse or misuse of the
office. The politician who holds public office must perform public duties with
the sense of purpose, and a sense of direction, under rules or sense of priorities.
The purpose must be genuine in a free democratic society governed by the rule
of law to further socio-economic democracy. ............... If the Minister, in
fact, is responsible for all the detailed working of his Department, then
clearly ministerial responsibility must cover a wider spectrum than mere moral
responsibility; for no minister can possibly get acquainted with; all the
detailed decisions involved in the working of his Department....
The so-called public
policy cannot be a camouflage for abuse of the power and trust entrusted with a
public authority or public servant for the performance of public duties. Misuse
implies doing of something improper. The essence of impropriety is replacement of
a public motive for a private one. When satisfaction sought in the performance
of duties is for mutual personal gain, the misuse is usually termed as
corruption. The holder of a public office is said to have misused his position
when in pursuit of a private satisfaction, as distinguished from public
interest, he has done something which he ought not to have done. The most elementary
qualification demanded of a Minister is honesty and incorruptibility. He should
not only possess these qualifications but should also appear to possess the
same." (emphasis supplied)
In R v. Metropolitan
Police Commissioner (1968) 1 All. E.R. 763,the Court of Appeal considered the
question whether the Commissioner of Police could give instruction to the cadre
not to take action against clubs for violating gaming laws and held that he was
not entitled to do so. The facts of the case show that Albert Raymond Blackburn
applied for a mandamus to the Commissioner of Police of Metropolis requiring
him to assist him in the prosecution of gaming clubs, which contravened the
provisions of Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963 and in particular to
assist him in respect of the complaint lodged on March 21, 1967 in relation to
Golden Nugget Club, Piccadilly and to reverse or procure the reversal of a
policy decision taken by him or his superiors that the time of the police
officers would not be spent on enforcing the provisions of the Betting, Gaming
and Lotteries Act,1963. The Divisional Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the
application.
The Court of Appeal
noted that the policy decision contained in communication dated April 22, 1966
was a confidential instruction issued to the senior officers of the
metropolitan police whereby they were directed not to proceed against the clubs
for breach of gaming laws unless there was complaint of cheating or they become
haunts of criminals. As a result of the said instruction, the big gaming clubs
in the metropolis were allowed to carry on their activities without any police
interference. In his opinion, Lord Denning M.R. made the following
observations: "I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as
it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take
steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens
may go about their affairs in peace.
He must decide
whether or no suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring
the prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not
the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No minister of the Crown can tell
him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that
he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police
authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He
is answerable to the law and to the law alone." (emphasis supplied)
In Magill v. Porter
(2002) 2 AC 357, the House of Lords upheld the decision of the District Auditor
who had opined that certain Ministers of West ministers City Council had used
their powers to increase the number of owners/occupiers in marginal wards for
the purpose of encouraging them to vote for the Conservative Party in future
elections. The House of Lords held that although the powers under which the
Council could dispose of the land was very broad, and although, elected politicians
were entitled to act in a manner which would earn the gratitude and support of
their electorate, they could act only to pursue a "public purpose for
which the power was conferred", but the purpose of securing electoral
advantage for the Conservative Party was no such "public purpose".
8.
At
this stage, I may also refer to the following portion of the preface to 1964 paperback
edition of the book titled "The Modern State" by Maciver: "The
state has no finality, but human nature is as stable as human needs, and what
human beings need from government - if we think not of the few, but of men
generally, men as social beings - is the same under all conditions. These are
liberties secured by restraints, justice under law, order that provides opportunity,
the economy of the good life. The modes of satisfying these needs change with
the changing conditions. To satisfy any need whatever, even the most spiritual,
a modicum of power is necessary, for power is simply the effective control of
means. From the beginning of human history government has been recognized as
the overall holder and regulatory of power, maintaining order by limiting all
other expressions of power and thereby turning permitted powers into rights. In
that concept lay the rudiments of the principles of government. In every age
men have sought to clarify the application of these principles to the changing
times. In every age the abuse of power by governments has led to disasters and
uprisings, oppressions and vainglorious wars, and sometimes to experiments in
the control of power, seeking to make it responsible, or more responsible,
subject in some manner to the will of the people, of the majority or those who
represented them."
9.
The
facts of this case, as noticed in the judgment prepared by brother Justice
Ganguly, show that with a view to frustrate the complaint made by respondent
No.1 who alleged that respondent No.2 - Gokulchand Sananda, his family members
and some other money lenders were harassing him and other farmers and also to
stall the action likely to be initiated by the concerned police authorities
under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, a member of
the Legislative Assembly approached the Chief Minister for a special treatment.
In the first place, the Principal Secretary of the Chief Minister made
enquiries from the police station about the cases registered against Sananda.
Thereafter, the Chief Minister, without verifying the truthfulness or otherwise
of the assertion of Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda that false complaints were being
lodged against his family members, issued instructions that complaint against
the concerned M.L.A. and his family members should be first placed before the
District Anti-Money Lending Committee, which should obtain legal opinion of the
District Government Pleader and then only take decision on the same and take
appropriate legal action.
10.
The
camouflage of sophistry used by ShriVilas Rao Deshmukh in the instructions
given by him and the affidavit filed before this Court is clearly misleading.
The message to the authorities wasloud and clear i.e. they were not to take the
complaints against Sananda family seriously and not to proceed against them.
The District Magistrate, the District Superintendent of Police and officers
subordinate to them were bound to comply with the same in their letter and
spirit. They could disregard those instructions at their own peril and none of
them was expected to do so. The District Anti-Money Lending Committee was constituted
by the Government of Maharashtra vide resolution No.MLA.1204/CR/280/C/7/S dated
19th October, 2009 for protecting the farmers against unscrupulous money
lenders and not for protecting the wrong doers, but in total disregard of the
scheme of the Act, the Chief Minister gave instructions which had the effect of
frustrating the object of the legislation enacted for protection of the
farmers. The instructions given by the Chief Minister to District Collector,
Buldhana were ex facie ultra vires the provisions of the Act which do not
envisage any role of the Chief Minister in cases involving violation of the
provisions of the Act and amounted to an unwanted interference with the
functioning of the authorities entrusted with the task of enforcing the Act
enacted for regulating, controlling transactions of money lending and
protecting unsuspecting borrowers against oppression and harassment at the
hands of unscrupulous money lenders.
............................J.
(G.S. Singhvi)
New
Delhi,
December
14, 2010
Back
