Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar vs The Union Of India on 5 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:14492-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No.6977 of 2023
-----
Arun Kumar, S/o Late Narain Pandit, Village Bella, P.O.
Murkmanai, P.S. Markacho, District Koderma (Jharkhand).
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of India.
3. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No.5/B, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg, New
Delhi-110003.
4. The Director, Enforcement Directorate, Headquarters, 6 th Floor,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
5. The State of Jharkhand.
6. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
7. The Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
8. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Adre House, Ranchi.
9. The State of Bihar.
10. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Government
Secretariat, Patna, Desh Ratna Marg, Rajbansi Nagar, Patna.
11. The Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Government
Secretariat, Patna, 401, Bailey Road, Nand Gaon, Rajbansi Nagar,
Patna.
12. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Government Secretariat,
Patna, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
13. Anurag Gupta, I.P.S., Rani Kothi, Doranda, Ranchi.
14. Priya Dubey, I.P.S., Ashok Nagar, Road No.1, Argora, Ranchi.
15. Santosh Dubey, I.P.S., Ashok Nagar, Road No.1, Argora, Ranchi.
........... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate
For State of Jharkhand: Mr. Sanket Kumar, AC to AAG-V
For State of Bihar : Mr. Divakar Upadhyay, AC to GA
-----
Reserved on 29.04.2025 Pronounced On 05.06.2025
Per: Rajesh Shankar, J.
1. The present writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation
has been preferred with following prayers: –
1
2025:JHHC:14492-DB
(i) For issuance of direction upon the respondents no. 3 & 4
to investigate the Magadh University P.S. Case No. 64 of
2000 dated 17.10.2000 registered u/s 167, 168, 468, 471,
474, 109, 116, 119, 120(B) 201 I.P.C. and 13(2) Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988, whereby all the accused persons
have been sent for trial except Respondent no.13 (I.P.S).
and his wife Sikha Gupta for their act of forgery
and purchasing fake degree of M.A. (History) on the basis
of which she has become Lecturer in Magadh University,
Bihar.
(ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3 & 4
to investigate the accumulation of disproportionate assets
by the respondent no.14- Priya Dubey, I.P.S., ADG, in
Jharkhand Police & her husband, namely, Santosh Dubey,
I.P.S. (the respondent no.15 herein), as the C.B.I. has
already raided their premises and has lodged FIR on
10.07.13, but investigation could not progress because of
their strong connection in Jharkhand political circle.
(iii) For issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents
to immediately stop these officers from performing
their duties and responsibility in their
respective departments, as under the garb of the post of
Police Officers, they are indulging in illegal business &
these tainted officers are having hands in glove with
tainted ministers of Jharkhand & they are protecting
their mutual interest.
2
2025:JHHC:14492-DB
(iv) For issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4
to submit the investigation report before this Hon’ble Court,
as there is an ECIR registered by E.D. against the
respondent no.14-Priya Dubey, I.P.S. & her husband under
PML ACT 2005, and the investigation has not been
completed till date.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is a social activist and he has no personal interest, either directly
or, indirectly. It is submitted that respondent no.13 who at the
time of filing of the present writ petition was holding the post of
Director General, (CID) is involved in number of cases, but
surprisingly all the cases never attended their logical end due to
his influence. It is further submitted that respondent no.13
managed to get degree of M.A. in ‘History’ from
Magadh University, Bihar for his wife namely Sikha Gupta without
her appearing in the examination and to that effect an F.I.R being
Magadh University P.S. Case No. 64/2000 was registered on
17.10.2000. In the said case, various persons faced criminal
prosecution except respondent no.13 and his wife- Sikha Gupta
as respondent no.13, being a influential person managed the case
and no sanction for prosecution was given against them.
Respondent no.13 opted Jharkhand Cadre at the time of
reorganization of the erstwhile State of Bihar and he kept the said
matter lingering due to his management skills.
3. It is pleaded in the writ petition that in the year 2016, respondent
no.13 was found managing the election process in Rajya Sabha
3
2025:JHHC:14492-DB
Election of 2016 and as per the direction of the Election
Commission of India, an FIR was Lodged against him
in Jagarnnathpur Police Station which is also pending
investigation. Hence, the State of Bihar, State of Jharkhand and
the Ministry of Home, Govt. of India must initiate appropriate
legal action against Respondent no.13, so as to impart justice to
the residents of the State of Jharkhand.
4. It is further submitted that respondent no.14 and respondent
no.15- wife and husband are IPS Officers and have accumulated
huge wealth from unknown sources for which an FIR was
registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on
10.07.13 and the Enforcement Directorate also
registered ECIR. Moreover, respondent no.15 is also involved in
illegal coal trade with a person, namely, Sonu Aggrawal @ Amit
Aggrawal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that
no public interest is involved in the present case and as such the
same is liable to be dismissed. The present writ petition filed in
the form of a PIL is not genuine, rather has been filed by the
petitioner for extraneous reasons and ill motive. As such, it is not
worth to be entertained.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials placed on record.
7. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the private respondents are working on top posts in the
Government of Jharkhand and neither the Government of Bihar
4
2025:JHHC:14492-DB
nor the Government of Jharkhand is taking any action against
them due to their influential status which has compelled him to
file present PIL.
8. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would
be appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs.
Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, reported in (2010) 3
SCC 402, wherein it has been held as under: –
“181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present
case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court
and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to
preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become
imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL
and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for
extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own
procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it
would be appropriate for each High Court to properly
formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and
discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have
not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within
three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is
directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the
High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court
immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of
the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the
correctness of the contents of the petition before
entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial
public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which
involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be
given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure
that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or
public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no
personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind
filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by
busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting
5
2025:JHHC:14492-DB
similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”
9. Thus, before entertaining a PIL, the Court should ensure that the
PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury
and there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive
behind filing the public interest litigation. The Court should prima
facie verify the credentials of the petitioner and should also be
satisfied regarding correctness of the contents of the PIL petition.
10. In the case in hand, in support of the allegations levelled against
the private respondents, the petitioner has only placed on record
the copies of F.I.Rs. lodged against them which cannot be said
to be sufficient to substantiate the same.
11. We are of the view that the allegations made by the petitioner
against the private respondents are vague and unsubstantiated.
As such, seeking further investigation in such a matter that too
by filing a PIL is nothing but an abuse of the process of court.
12. Moreover, FIR being Magadh University P.S Case No. 64 of 2000
was lodged pursuant to the order of Patna High Court passed in
PIL No.7146 of 1998 whereby direction was issued to institute an
FIR against six government officials including respondent no.13
and Sikha Gupta and to investigate the allegations levelled
against them.
13. The petitioner seeks investigation of the same incident after more
than 25 years of the lodging of the said FIR alleging that though
other accused persons were sent up for trial, however no action
was taken against respondent no.13 and Sikha Gupta due to their
influential position. In the case of respondent no.14 and
6
2025:JHHC:14492-DB
respondent no.15, the petitioner has sought investigation of an
F.I.R. lodged by the CBI/ACB, Patna on 10.07.2013. The
petitioner has not given any reason as to why he waited for such
a long in moving this Court. If at all, the petitioner is a public
spirited person, he should have promptly approached the
appropriate forum/court, in case he had any grievance against
the investigating agencies. Otherwise also, once the F.I.Rs. were
lodged against the private respondents, the recourses provided
under the Cr.P.C. were available to the concerned persons
including the investigating agencies.
14. In the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) Vs.
Bombay Environmental Action Group & Others, reported
in (2006) 3 SCC 434, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under: –
“341. Delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioners
indisputably have a role to play in the matter of grant of
reliefs in a writ petition. This Court in a large number of
decisions has categorically laid down that where by reason
of delay and/or laches on the part of the writ petitioners
the parties altered their positions and/or third-party
interests have been created, public interest litigations may
be summarily dismissed. Delay although may not be the
sole ground for dismissing a public interest litigation in
some cases and, thus, each case must be considered having
regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining therein, the
underlying equitable principles cannot be ignored. As
regards applicability of the said principles, public interest
litigations are no exceptions. We have heretobefore noticed
the scope and object of public interest litigation. Delay of
such a nature in some cases is considered to be of vital
importance. (See Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P.
Gururaja [(2003) 8 SCC 567].)
342. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [(2000)
10 SCC 664] this Court held: (SCC p. 762, para 229)“Any delay in the execution of the project means
overrun in costs and the decision to undertake a
project, if challenged after its execution has
commenced, should be thrown out at the very
threshold on the ground of laches if the petitioner
had the knowledge of such a decision and could have
approached the court at that time. Just because a
petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that7
2025:JHHC:14492-DBordinary principles applicable to litigation will not
apply. Laches is one of them.”
343. In R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance
Group [(2005) 3 SCC 91] this Court laid down the law in the
following terms: (SCC p. 109, para 23)
“Sacrosanct jurisdiction of public interest litigation
should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of
vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke
this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity or for the
purpose of serving their private ends.”
It was further stated: (SCC p. 113, para 34)
“34. There is no doubt that delay is a very important
factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot
disturb the third-party interest created on account
of delay. Even otherwise also why should the Court
come to the rescue of a person who is not vigilant
of his rights?”
15. It is well settled principle of law that though there is no period of
limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition, delay and laches are
such factors which are required to be borne in mind by the High
Court in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case, the High Court
may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is
negligence or omission on the part of the applicant in filing the
writ petition. We are of the view that the said principle of denying
consideration on grounds of delay and laches is also applicable to
Public Interest Litigation when there is an inordinate delay in
moving the court and such delay is not properly explained.
16. So far the incident of managing election process in Rajya Sabha
Election of 2016 by respondent no.13 is concerned, it is the own
case of the petitioner that an FIR to that effect was lodged and
the investigation of the same was pending till filing of the writ
petition. Moreover, in support of the said allegation the petitioner
has not brought any material on record so as to prima facie satisfy
8
2025:JHHC:14492-DBthis Court about correctness of the same, which is a condition
precedent to entertain a Public Interest Litigation.
17. It is made clear that we are not of the view that the conduct of
the officers, occupying high chairs should not be investigated, yet
such consideration is not possible on vague averments
unsupported by relevant materials that too by filing a writ petition
in the form of a PIL without prima facie satisfying the Court.
18. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra.), the High Court of
Jharkhand has framed the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest
Litigation) Rules, 2010. It has been mentioned in rule 4 of the
Rules, 2010 that the petitioner in a public interest litigation shall
state in clear terms the relief prayed for in paragraph-1 of the
petition and the grounds in paragraph-2 thereof. Further, in
paragraph-3 of the petition, the petitioner shall give his/her full
and complete details so as to reveal his/her interest, credentials
and qualifications relevant for the public interest litigation, along
with a declaration that he/she has no personal interest, direct or
indirect, in the subject-matter of public interest litigation. In
addition, the petitioner shall set out all relevant facts along with
available supporting data, reports, etc. Moreover, rule 4-B of the
Rules, 2010 states that every public interest litigation will
chronologically mention in detail all such other and earlier efforts
with their result, which are within the knowledge, and which have
been made by the concerned petitioner or others for obtaining
the relief sought by filing the public interest litigation. Rule 5 of
9
2025:JHHC:14492-DBthe Rules, 2010 also provides that to encourage only genuine and
bona fide public interest litigation and discourage public interest
litigation filed for extraneous considerations, the Bench hearing a
public interest litigation shall first verify the prima facie
credentials of the concerned petitioner before entertaining any
case as public interest litigation.
19. In the case in hand, the petitioner has made vague statement
with regard to his credential in paragraph 3 of the present writ
petition and as such the credential of the petitioner prima facie
appears to be doubtful. Though, the petitioner has claimed that
he is a social activist and is working for rooting out corruption in
the society, he has failed to bring on record any document in
support of the said claim. Moreover, it is the own admission of
the petitioner that a criminal case being Lalpur P.S Case No. 247
of 2015 was lodged against him in which he had gone to jail.
Thus, the present PIL seems to have been filed with revengeful
attituded against the private respondents. That apart, for the
allegation of getting fake degree in M.A (History) by the wife of
respondent no.13 a PIL was earlier filed in the Patna High Court
being PIL No. 7146 of 1998 and pursuant to the direction issued
by the said High Court, an FIR being Magadh University P.S Case
No. 64 of 2000 was lodged. Though the said fact was within the
knowledge of the petitioner, he did not make specific averment
in that regard in the present writ petition, which does not conform
to the requirement of rule 4B of the Rules, 2010. Thus, the bona
fide of the petitioner is in cloud.
10
2025:JHHC:14492-DB
20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any reason
to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/AFR11
[ad_1]
Source link