| Headnote |
Judgment/Order: Reasoned judgment – Requirement to give reasons in the judgment/order – Grievance of the appellants is that the reasoning for the impugned judgment was given and published long after its operative portion was pronounced – The operative portion of the judgment was pronounced on 27.06.2019 – The reasons were published on 05.10.2020 – Held: High Court’s conduct in not furnishing reasons, either at the time of pronouncement of the operative part of the judgment, or before the commencement of the next working day (of the court) strongly deprecated – Judicial deprecation. Public interest litigation: Impugned judgment passed in writ petition filed as Public interest litigation (PIL) challenged by the appellants on the ground that the PIL was motivated – Held: There is no doubt, that PIL is meant to be entertained, for bona fide causes, and not to aid either misguided individuals in their quest for publicity, or for wreaking vendetta on public officials or institutions – The cause espoused by the writ petitioners was undoubtedly one of public interest, because it concerned housing for the economically disadvantaged sections of society, in such great numbers – The scheme was meant to benefit thousands of persons, and over a thousand housing units were to be constructed and allotted to the beneficiaries – In view of the inquiries and the reports, conducted and prepared during the proceedings, the initiation of public interest proceedings, were justified, having regard to the contents of such reports – Even if the public interest litigants’ motives were ambiguous, or not immediately bona fide, that could not have led to dismissal of the writ petition, before the High Court – The objection as to lack of standing of the public interest litigants, therefore, is without merit – Housing. Public interest litigation: Housing scheme – Allegations of failure and neglect on the part of the municipal authorities in regard to completion of the scheme – In the criminal public interest litigation, the respondents (PIL petitioners) sought directions to the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Housing and Urban Development Authority (MHADA) and state officials to initiate criminal proceedings against the responsible officers and office bearers of Municipal Council, Naldurg and concerned contractors for misappropriation of government funds in implementation of the housing scheme in the municipality – The PIL petitioners had alleged the utter mismanagement in terms of which as many as 1.05 lakh dwelling units were to be constructed and handed over to the eligible individuals – The scheme contemplated a substantial funding by the central government and the rest of the funding to be borne by the allottees – As against the targeted 1206 housing units to be constructed, 737 beneficiaries belonged to the reserved category and the rest to the general category – Inspection reports and affidavits of MHADA as well as the Divisional Commissioner revealed that only 302 housing units were constructed in different localities in Naldurg, of which 202 could be used and 100 were in an unusable and dilapidated condition – The affidavits filed on behalf of authorities revealed that excess payments of ` 1,52,81,846/- and ` 90,97,771/- were made – After taking note of affidavit of the Commissioner, High Court disposed of PILs directing the respondents to take steps in light of the reports, and action outlined in the affidavit, “to its logical end” as expeditiously as possible – In the instant appeal, the main argument of the appellant was that criminal proceedings were initiated against them even though they were not heard in the public interest proceedings, and that being adverse to them the judgment was vitiated on account of their non-participation – Held: High Court had not by itself directed initiation of investigation nor did it direct registration of an FIR – High Court had directed respondents to take steps in light of their reports, and action outlined in the affidavit, “to its logical end” – The material on record before the High Court in the form of inspection report and further materials including the Divisional Commissioner’s affidavit, showed irregularities of a severe nature – The constructions, according to the reports, were sub-standard in respect of 100 such houses, so severe that the units were unusable– The main objective of providing housing to 1206 eligible and deserving families remained unfulfilled despite expenditure of substantial amounts – In the circumstances, the argument of the appellants that they ought to have been heard even before action was initiated, does not commend to this Court; it is not sound – There were materials suggesting serious irregularities – The government allowed the Divisional Commissioner to affirm in the affidavit filed by him that criminal proceedings would be initiated – In such circumstances, the observations of the High Court to take the matter to the logical end have to be, therefore, construed in that context – Whether the allegations are true or whether the submissions on behalf of the petitioners justified their conduct or omission is something upon which the High Court could not and correctly did not comment – As far as the FIR itself was concerned, the police had no choice given the imperative nature of the law declared in Lalita Kumari where a preliminary enquiry ordinarily is to be eschewed whenever cognizable offences are reported – Thus, the impugned order not interfered with. |
