http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5954 of 2007

PETITIONER: Seema Dhamdhere, Secretary, M.P.S.C.

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12279 of 2006) [with Crl. Appeal No.1726 of  2007  (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5498 of 2006]

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.  

2.      These two appeals are inter-connected in the sense that  they have their matrix in connected matters. In the appeal  relating to SLP No.12279/2006 challenge is to the order in  writ petition 482 of 2003 while in the appeal relating to SLP  (Crl.) No.5498/2006 challenge is to the order in Crl. Writ  petition No.1048 of 2006. As noted above, the writ petitions  are linked in the sense that a writ petition was filed by two  practicing advocates alleging on the basis of some newspaper  report that there was large scale malpractice in the  examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service  Commission (in short the \021Commission\022). ACB C.R.  No.33/2002 was registered and one S.B. Pujari was initially  investigating into the allegations. The writ petitioners alleged  that said investigating officer had collected material and  process of arresting one Smt. Sayalee Joshi and others and to  pre-empt such acts he was transferred on 31.1.2003. From  time to time 22 accused persons were arrested.  An affidavit  was filed by the then Director General on 12.5.2006 indicating  that investigation in the said crime no.33/2002 had come to  an end. Shri Pujari had filed affidavit that the investigation  was not yet complete.  He had been transferred by a general  transfer order dated 6.9.2006.  Shri Anil P. Dhere filed an  affidavit indicating that the investigation is complete.  Shri  S.B. Pujari requested that more time was required to be  granted to him to respond the affidavit of Shri Anil P. Dhere.  But the High Court did not consider that to be necessary.  The  High Court was of the view that if the Special Court before  which the matter was pending issued necessary directions,  even after conclusion of the investigation if any, further  materials can be collected against any accused persons can be  brought on record.  The stand of the Commission was that  subsequently there was another case registered i.e. ACB  7/2006. Prayer was to quash the said proceedings and to  continue investigation in ACB 33/2002. The High Court felt  that the same shall be considered on merits uninfluenced by  orders passed in Writ Petition no.482/03.  The High Court  observed that there was different perception of investigation  between Shri Anil P. Dhere and Shri S.B. Pujari. The High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition.  The High  Court felt since Shri S.B. Pujari had put in three years in  investigating the State Government would be objective and  would not take any adverse view of the stand taken by Shri  Pujari.  It was clarified that affidavit of Shri S.B. Pujari was  not to be used in any other proceedings.   

3.      In the connected matter the prayer was to quash the first  information report no.7 of 2006 on the ground that crime  no.33/2002 was pending and there was overlapping.  The  High Court felt that the two were conceptually different.  It was  directed that the investigation shall be conducted fairly under  the supervision of Shri G.D. Virk, the Director General of  Police, Bombay and the Commission should cooperate in the  investigation.  The Director General was directed to submit  progress report periodically.   

4.      Essentially the stand of the learned counsel for the  Commission was that the criminal proceeding has resulted in  loss of face for the statutory body.  Ultimately it appears that  in the name of Public Interest Litigation the transfer of police  official has been questioned which is impermissible.  Because  of the difference of perception regarding the nature of  functions if any unnecessarily officials of Commission are  being entangled.  It is the ultimate objective of the Commission  to conduct examinations.  The examinations are not being  held for a long period. 5.      In response, Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor  General for the State submitted that the writ petitions are not  maintainable because in a Public Interest Litigation the  transfer of an official could not have been questioned.  It is  also highlighted that petitions questioning transfer of  respondent no.7 Ms. Seema P. Dhamdhere, Secretary, MPSC,  on the same plea was mala fide. The said Ms. Seema P.  Dhamdhere, has in the capacity as the Secretary of MPSC filed  the SLP no.12279/2006 in which leave has been granted.   Shri Pujari who had appeared in person submitted that  because he has unearthed certain damaging evidence and  materials which would have exposed placed officials he was  being transferred.   

6.      The parameters of Public Interest Litigation in matters of  service have been highlighted by this Court in many cases.  In   Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2005 (5) SCC 136) it  was noted as follows:

    \023The scope of entertaining a petition  styled as a public interest litigation, locus  standi of the petitioner particularly in matters  involving service of an employee has been  examined by this court in various cases. The  Court has to be satisfied about (a) the  credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie  correctness or nature of information given by  him; (c) the information being not vague and  indefinite.  The information should show  gravity and seriousness involved.  Court has to  strike balance between two conflicting  interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to  indulge in wild and reckless allegations  besmirching the character of others; and (ii)  avoidance of public mischief and to avoid  mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for  oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.   In such case, however, the Court cannot afford

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

to be liberal.  It has to be extremely careful to  see that under the guise of redressing a public  grievance, it does not encroach upon the  sphere reserved by the Constitution to the  Executive and the Legislature.  The Court has  to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters  and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers  impersonating as public-spirited holy men.   They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They  pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono  Publico, though they have no interest of the  public or even of their own to protect.

    As noted supra, a time has come to weed  out the petitions, which though titled as public  interest litigations are in essence something  else. It is shocking to note that Courts are  flooded with large number of so called public  interest litigations where even a minuscule  percentage can legitimately be called as public  interest litigations.  Though the parameters of  public interest litigation have been indicated  by this Court in large number of cases, yet  unmindful of the real intentions and  objectives, High Courts are entertaining such  petitions and wasting valuable judicial time  which, as noted above, could be otherwise  utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though  in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra  Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114),  this Court held that in service matters PILs  should not be entertained, the inflow of so- called PILs involving service matters continues  unabated in the Courts and strangely are  entertained.  The least the High Courts could  do is to throw them out on the basis of the  said decision. The other interesting aspect is  that in the PILs, official documents are being  annexed without even indicating as to how the  petitioner came to possess them.  In one case,  it was noticed that an interesting answer was  given as to its possession. It was stated that a  packet was lying on the road and when out of  curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found  copies of the official documents.  Whenever  such frivolous pleas are taken to explain  possession, the Court should do well not only  to dismiss the petitions but also to impose  exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the  Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and  dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that  the message goes in the right direction that  petitions filed with oblique motive do not have  the approval of the Courts.\024

7.      In both the cases the affected persons have filed writ  petition.  It is true that if the allegations are found to be  substantiated it would affect the image of Commission. But  that cannot be a ground to stall investigation which has to be  done in a transparent manner. The credibility of any  institution depends upon the transparent action of its  functionaries. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the  Commission that it would be in the interest of all concerned if  the examinations which are said to have been not held for  nearly five years are held early.  The process of selection of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Chairman and the members would be initiated forthwith if not  already done.  It has been stated that the new Secretary of the  Commission has taken over.         8.      It is pointed out by the learned Solicitor General that the  writ petition 7/2003 has already been disposed of.        9.      We do not find any scope for interference with the orders  passed by the High Court. The appeals are accordingly  disposed of.