“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 219 OF 2006

Citizens for Justice and Peace …. Petitioner

Versus

State of Gujarat & Others …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. This Writ  Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has

been  filed  basically  challenging  the  appointment  and  continuation  of

respondent  No.  3  Shri  P.C.  Pandey to  the  post  of  Director  General  of

Police, State of Gujarat.  The other prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct

respondent No. 1 -  State of Gujarat to take disciplinary action including

prosecuting respondent  No.  3  for  having failed in  his  duties  during  the

Gujarat carnage of 2002.

2. Notice was issued by this Court on 11.5.2006 to the respondents,

whereupon, the State of  Gujarat  has come up with a Counter  Affidavit,

denying most  of  the  contentions  raised  in  the  Writ  Petition.   This  Writ

Petition was filed on 1.5.2006 and notice thereof was issued on 11.5.2006

1

and ever since then, number of interim orders in nature of directions came

to be passed.

3. Shortly stated,  the petitioner  claiming itself  to  be an organization,

which was started as a response to the alleged carnage which took place

in Gujarat from 27.2.2002 onwards with the main objective to bridge the

gap between the  various religious  communities,  as  also  to  ensure  that

justice is done to those who are the victims of communalism.  It is claimed

that it had set up a Citizens Tribunal to go into the causes and extent of

communal violence in Gujarat headed by two retired Hon’ble Judges of this

Court.   The petitioner  has  filed  the  Report  of  the  said  Tribunal,  which

published in two volumes.  The other contentions which are raised are that

the respondent No. 3 Shri P.C. Pandey was the Commissioner of Police,

Ahmedabad during the period when the communal disturbances rocked the

State  of  Gujarat.   It  is  claimed  that  more  than  700  persons  died  and

number  of  irregularities  were  committed  by  Shri  Pandey  such  as  not

supplying  the  reinforcements  and  serious  derelictions  of  his  duties.

Number of other allegations have been made that Shri Pandey was sent on

deputation to CBI, which appointment was challenged before this Court by

the petitioner by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 147 of 2004, wherein, the Union

of  India had given an undertaking that  he would not  handle any cases

relating to Gujarat riots of 2002.  He was accordingly not allowed to handle

those cases.  It has also come in the allegations that on account of the

directions issued by this Court, about 2000 cases which were hastily closed

by the then Gujarat  Government,  were directed to  be re-opened and a

2

fresh scrutiny into those cases was also ordered.  It was expresses that if

Shri Pandey continued in the highest post of Director General of Police,

those cases would be adversely affected and the guilty would be shielded

and that would be patent denial of justice.

4. In its Counter  Affidavit,  the State of  Gujarat  opposed most of  the

claims and pointed out that the claim that the appointment of respondent

No. 3 as a Director General of Police would be detrimental to the cause of

justice,  is  not  correct.   It  is  pointed  out  that  the  Review  Committee

constituted  under  the  directions  of  this  Court  earlier  vide  order  dated

17.8.2004  was  required  to  look  into  all  2020  riot  cases,  wherein,  the

investigating agency had filed “A” Summary.  It is further pointed out that

Shri Pandey was not in any manner connected with the Review Committee

nor was he in a position to influence the same.  It is further pointed out that

up to the quarter ending 30th April, 2006, as many as 1989 cases out of the

aforesaid  2020  cases  had  already  been  reviewed  in  respect  of  which

periodic reports were filed by the Committee before this Court.  It is claimed

that  in  all,  hardly  30  “A”  summary  cases  had  remained  and  it  was,

therefore, argued before us by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the State of Gujarat that there was no point in now taking exception to the

appointment  and  continuation  of  the  third  respondent  as  the  Director

General of Police.  Learned Counsel also informed us during the debate

that even those 30 “A” summary cases have already been decided upon

and, therefore, there is no scope for those cases being affected by Shri

3

Pandey in his continuation as the Director General of Police.  It is further

submitted at the Bar that Shri Pandey is going to retire on 31st March, 2009

and  under  the  circumstances,  this  Writ  Petition  itself  has  become

redundant.

5. Considering the overall situation, firstly, the fact that almost all the

cases in the “A” summary, which were recommenced by the investigating

agency,  have  already  been  dealt  with  by  the  Scrutiny  Committee  and

secondly that Shri Pandey is going to retire on 31st March, 2009, we do not

propose to continue with this Writ Petition.  In fact, this Writ Petition has

itself become redundant as the continuation of Shri Pandey as the DGP is

of no consequence insofar as the apprehension expressed by the petitioner

in the Writ Petition is concerned.

6. Shri P.P. Rao urged that if  Shri Pandey continues to that post, he

may be in a position to pressurize the Courts, where, in pursuance of the

recommendations  of  the  Scrutiny  Committee,  the  prosecutions  are  in

progress.  We do not think that such a thing can be said either regarding

Shri  Pandey or even the Trial  Courts  in  Gujarat.   We do not have any

reasons to believe that Shri Pandey, in his remaining tenure of about three

months, would take any such steps.  We do not think that the Trial Courts

in Gujarat are capable of being pressurized in the manner expressed in the

Writ Petition.

7. An appointment of a government servant is the prerogative of the

particular government, particularly, when it  is  a sensitive appointment of

4

Director  General  of  Police.   We,  under the  doctrine of  ‘judicial  review’,

would  not  extend  our  hands  to  upset  such  an  appointment,  more

particularly, in the factual panorama which is available today.  We hold that

the present Writ Petition has become redundant and we dispose it of as

such.   As  for  any disciplinary  action  against  Shri  Pandey,  it  is  for  the

concerned government.  We will not enter the fact finding exercise.

8. Shri  Rao further expressed that  the Government of  Gujarat  might

extend the appointment by giving extension to Shri Pandey.  We do not

think any such contention can be entertained at this stage, without there

being any basis for the same.

9. In  the  result,  the  Writ  Petition  is  disposed  of  in  the  light  of

observations made hereinabove.

………………………………..J. (Markandey Katju)

………………………………..J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

New Delhi;

January 13, 2009.

5