http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (crl.) 197-198 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' & Anr.

RESPONDENT:

Union of India & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/2006

BENCH:

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

I had the privilege of perusing the judgment proposed by

my learned Brother - Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.

While respectfully concurring with the conclusion arrived by

the learned Judge, I would like to add the following few

paragraphs:-

The first petitioner is a Member of Parliament and the

second petitioner is the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar. The

above writ petition, ostensibly in public interest, has been filed

by them for the following relief:

a. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction monitoring

the conduct of the trials relating to the fodder scam case

proceeding against respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the State

of Bihar & State of Jharkhand;

b. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing

the Director, CBI to reinstate the prosecutors who were

handling the cases in the Trial Court and the High

Court and directing that no prosecutor or any CBI

officer attached with the investigation and the trial of

these scam cases should be removed, harassed or

victimized for discharging their duties, without specific

orders from this Hon'ble Court;

c. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing

the Director, CBI to provide the logistics and ensure

that it is represented by at least one Inspector in each of

the 7 courts by Special Judge, CBI in the State of

Jharkhand which is trying the fodder scam cases so

that no adjournments are sought and granted;

d. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction canceling

the bail granted to respondent nos.4 and 5

e. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing

the respondent no.1 and/or 3 to file an appeal against

the order passed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal"

On our direction, the Registrar General of the Patna High

Court was present in Court on 26.07.2006. He filed an

affidavit and also explained the procedure followed in the

appointment of Shri Munni Lal Paswan as a special Judge to

try the disproportionate assets cases with reference to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

records.

We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kailas Vasudev

learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram

Jethmalani, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.H.Parekh

and Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General and Mr.

Mohan Parasan, learned ASG for the respondents.

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned

senior counsel made elaborate submissions on the question of

maintainability of the writ petitions and also submitted that

Mr. Munni Lal Paswan was promoted recently and posted at

Patna for disposing off the case filed against respondent Nos. 4

and 5 and that the said Munni Lal Paswan is not a desirable

person to be posted in the said post to conduct the case. He

also requested that the Public Prosecutors who were proving to

be inconvenient to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are being

supplanted with chosen ones. Like that, Member (Judicial) in

the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - Mr. R.K. Tyagi who had

been hearing the appeal of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was

curiously sent on deputation and was replaced by Mr.

Mohanarajan, a person who was on the verge of retirement to

head the Tribunal. Within 2 weeks, the matter was heard and

allowed in favour of the assesses. He also submitted that the

case relating to disproportionate assets before the Special

Judge, CBI is at the final stage of hearing. The Director, CBI

has started changing the prosecutors mid-way when the case

was nearing completion and that the public prosecutor who

was conducting the cases from the very beginning has been

replaced by Shri Om Shankar Singh, a retired Deputy

Superintendent of Delhi Police who has commenced law

practice recently. It is also submitted that respondent Nos. 4

and 5 are deliberately protracting the trial by taking

unnecessary adjournments which, by itself, would be a ground

for cancellation of bail. He further submitted that by virtue of

the new political equations between the party in power in the

State of Bihar and at the Centre, respondent No.5 one of the

main accused in the fodder scam now has substantial

administrative control and political say in the functioning of

the Government of India and that the CBI and the Central

Board of Direct Taxes, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have become a

party in an effort to shield respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He

continued to submit that this Court shall monitor the case

since the accused are using state machinery to block the

judicial process and subvert the trial and dilatory tactics being

adopted by the accused to delay the trial on one pretext or the

other. He also submitted that the prosecutors or investigators

connected with the fodder scam matters in the State of Bihar

who have till date been discharging their functions in the trial

Court should not be disturbed, replaced or sidelined.

Mr. Rohatgi, in support of his contentions, invited our

attention to the various documents, annexures, income-tax

records and the paperbooks.

Appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Mr. Ram

Jethmalani, learned senior counsel argued that the petition

had been filed only to achieve personal or political gain, no

case had been made out for the cancellation of bail to Mr. Lalu

Prasad Yadav and his wife and this court should not monitor

the trial as it would send wrong signals. He also cited many

decisions with regard to the maintainability of the writ

petitions at the instance of practicing politicians. He sought

dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs.

Appearing for the CBI, learned Solicitor General G.E.

Vahanwati denied point by point the allegations of the

petitioners made in their pleadings with reference to various

documents and records and proved to our satisfaction that the

statements made by the petitioners are not true and correct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

and have been made with an ulterior motive. Learned Solicitor

General further submitted that there had been no interference

by Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav or his wife in any of the matters

whether in the appointment of Judges or in the change of the

prosecutor or on the decision not to file an appeal in the

income-tax cases. The learned Solicitor General cited T.N.

Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) vs. Union of India and

Others, 2006 (5) SCC 28 (Hon. Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J., Arijit

Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.) and submitted that howsoever

genuine a case brought before the Court by a public interest

litigant maybe, the Court has to decline its examination at the

behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant

and whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt and that no

trust can be placed by the Court on a mala fide applicant in

public interest litigation. Learned Solicitor General submitted

now it is time to give a severe warning and sound alert since

these are basic issues which are required to be satisfied by

every public interest litigant. He also cited paras 25 and 26 in

support of the contention that the writ petition is not

maintainable at the instance of the political rivals.

Mr. Ram Jethmalani in regard to the maintainability of

the writ petition cited the following decisions:

Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, (1992) 4

SCC 305 (2 Judges) para 109.

"It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and

having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will

alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to

wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from

violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person

for personal gain or private profit or political motive or

any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious

petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court

for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves

rejection at the threshold."

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra

and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 (Hon. Arijit Pasayat and Hon.

S.H.Kapadia, JJ) and invited our attention to para 4,5,9,10,12

and 14.

Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC

349 para 12

"12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to

be used with great care and circumspection and the

judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind

the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private

malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not

lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the

armory of law for delivering social justice to citizens.

The attractive brand name of public interest litigation

should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.

It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong

or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded

on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must

be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of

the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide

and not for personal gain or private motive or political

motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court

must not allow its process to be abused for oblique

considerations. Some persons with vested interest

indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process

either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often

they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap

popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to

be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in

appropriate cases, with exemplary costs."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Another, 1981

(Supp) SCC 87 (7 Judges) para 24

"24. But we must be careful to see that the member of

the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this

kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or

private profit or political motivation or other oblique

consideration. The Court must not allow its process to

be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate

administrative action or to gain a political objective.

Andre Rabie has warned that "political pressure groups

who could not achieve their aims through the

administrative process" and we might add, through the

political process, "may try to use the Courts to further

their aims". These are some of the dangers in public

interest litigation which the Court has to be careful to

avoid. It is also necessary for the Court to bear in mind

that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and

justiciability and it is not every default on the part of the

State or a public authority that is justiciable. The Court

must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits

of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are

reserved to the Executive and the Legislature by the

Constitution. It is a fascinating exercise for the Court to

deal with public interest litigation because it is a new

jurisprudence which the Court is evolving, a

jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship

and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are

expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines

which will change the complexion of the law and which

were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are

beginning to be born."

Mr. Rohatgi submitted that this Court should monitor

the conduct of the trial relating to the fodder scam cases

against respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

Union of India and Others vs. Sushil Kumar Modi

and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 661 (3 Judges) para 6

"6. This position is so obvious that no discussion of the point is

necessary. However, we may add that this position has never been

doubted in similar cases dealt with by this Court. It was made clear

by this Court in the very first case, namely Vineet Narain vs. Union

of India, (1996) 2 SCC 199 that once a charge-sheet is filed in the

competent court after completion of the investigation, the process of

monitoring by this Court for the purpose of making the CBI and

other investigative agencies concerned perform their function of

investigating into the offences concerned comes to an end; and

thereafter it is only the court in which the charge-sheet is filed which

is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused,

including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. We make this observation only to

reiterate this clear position in law so that no doubts in any quarter

may survive. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the

High Court dealing primarily with this aspect cannot be sustained."

(emphasis supplied)

It is thus clear from the above judgment that once a

charge-sheet is filed in the competent Court after completion

of the investigation, the process of monitoring by this Court for

the purpose of making the CBI and other investigative

agencies concerned perform their function of investigating into

offences concerned comes to an end and thereafter, it is only

the Court in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal

with all matters relating to the trial of the accused including

matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8).

We respectfully agree with the above view expressed by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

this Court. In our view, monitoring of pending trial is

subversion of criminal law as it stands to mean that the Court

behind the back of the accused is entering into a dialogue with

the investigating agency. Therefore, there can be no

monitoring, after the charge sheet is filed.

This Court issued a direction on 22.02.2005 to the

President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to submit a

detailed report in regard to the allegations made by the

petitioners. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the

President of ITAT filed a detailed report dated 09.03.2005. A

perusal of which shows that there is not an iota of truth in the

allegation and all the aforesaid averments are completely

baseless. As noticed earlier, certain allegations were made

against Mr. R.K.Tyagi and Mr. Mohanarajan whom, according

to the petitioners, were due for retirement was appointed to

head the Tribunal. It was further stated that on 02.07.2004

Mr. R.K.Tyagi who had been hearing the appeal of respondent

Nos. 4 and 5 was sent on deputation for 2 weeks and was

replaced by Mr. Mohanarajan, a person who was on the verge

of the retirement to head the Tribunal and that the said

Mohanarajan picked up only the cases pertaining to

respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and heard the matter and allowed in

favour of the assesses and that no appeal has been filed

against the said order.

On 22.02.2005, an order was passed by this Court

directing the Union of India to produce before this Court the

proposal of CBI dated 20.07.2004 and the entire file including

notations pertaining to the appointment of Mr. Uma Shankar

Sharma as prosecutor. The President, ITAT was directed to

send to this Court all papers pertaining to constitution of the

Bench of Mr. Mohanarajan and Mr. M.K. Sarkar and also to

sent copies/order sheets of ITA Nos. 233-237 of 2000 etc. etc.

The President, ITAT was directed to state whether Mr.

R.K.Tyagi was sent on deputation for two weeks during the

period the other two persons were appointed and if so why and

on whose behalf he was sent on deputation.

On 09.03.2005, Mr. Vimal Gandhi, President, ITAT

submitted his report. Flash figures of investigation, disposal

and dependency of appeals for the month of April, 2004 and

the position as on 01.05.2004 with reference to the various

benches in the country was furnished (Annexure-2). It is seen

from the report that Mr. D.K. Tyagi, JM, Patna had left India

without obtaining permission as required under the rules and

he was accordingly issued a show cause notice to explain

about the acts of indiscipline. This was done in early June.

Mr. Tyagi also explained the circumstances under which he

had gone abroad etc. The President acceded to his request on

compassionate grounds and permitted him to remain in Delhi

without any T.A. D.A. for 1 month from June, 21 onwards.

The President, ITAT, therefore, has stated that it is not correct

to suggest that Tyagi was shunted out of Patna by him.

Insofar as Mohanarajan is concerned, the President has

explained the position with regard to Mohanarajan and M.K.

Sarkar. He said Mr. Mohanarajan joined the Tribunal as

Judicial Member in November, 1995 and posted at Jabalpur,

Chennai, Patna and Bangalore and he served in Patna from

02.09.2002 onwards till he was transferred to Bangalore in

March, 2003. He is sobre in nature and that he is to retire on

06.11.2009 and he had never sat with Mr. Sarkar earlier.

When Mr. Agarwal's inability to tour Patna was made known

to the President in Bangalore, Mohanarajan's name came to

his mind as an appropriate person to replace Mr. D.K. Agrawal

and he was accordingly directed to camp at Patna in June,

2004 and that the camp was organized accordingly. Insofar as

Mr. M.K.Sarkar is concerned, he before joining the Appellate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

Tribunal Mr. Sarkar was asked managed to Patna and other

Benches on camp till regular members were available as

pendency at Kolkata was also low. The details of tour of

Sarkar to Patna in 2004 has also been furnished.

The learned Solicitor General then invited our attention

to Annexure-7 filed along with the report of the President,

ITAT. Respondent No.4 \026 Mr. Lalu Prasad, by his letter dated

15.10.2003, addressed a letter to the President, ITAT, New

Delhi requesting for transfer of appeals filed before Patna

Bench of the Tribunal to Delhi Bench in his case. On

17.10.2003, the President made a note on the said letter to

call for comments/objections, if any, from the

Department/Patna Bench by fax. Mr. Lalu Prasad has stated

in the said letter that since he is elected as a Member of Rajya

Sabha and performed duties as a Member of Rajya Sabha he

has to be present in Delhi and, therefore, the appeals may be

transferred from Patna to Delhi Bench. By annexure-8, the

Patna Bench gave its response on 31.12.2003 stating that the

legal aspect of the matter was being examined and that a final

report will follow soon. By annexure-9 dated 08.01.2004, the

Directorate General of Income-tax Patna addressed a letter to

Assistant Registrar, ITAT Patna Bench as to whether

constituting a special Bench for early disposal of the appeals

of Shri Lalu Prasad. Annexure-9 was in reply to the ITAT

Patna Bench letter dated 11.11.2003 and during that time the

present Government was not in power. By Annexure-10 the

DGIT by their letter dated 23.04.2004 stated that it would not

be possible to agree to transfer the appeals of Mr. Lalu Prasad

from ITAT, Patna Bench to ITAT, Delhi Bench and it may be

worthwhile to consider constituting a special Bench for early

disposal of these appeals. It is seen from annexure-12 dated

11.03.2004 signed by M.A. Bakshi, V.P. ITAT, Chandigarh

Zone that it may not be necessary to constitute a special

Bench for disposal of the appeals relating to Mr. Lalu Prasad.

In regard to the prayer for cancellation of the bail at the

instance of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the said

request cannot at all be countenanced. Our attention was

drawn to order dated 14.07.2003 passed by this Court which

reads thus:

"We have been extending bail from time to time for a

period of six months in order to monitor the trial. In

our view, it is not now necessary to do so any further.

We, therefore, order that the bail which has been

granted by this Court will continue for the duration of

the case on the same terms and conditions. We clarify

that it will be open to the C.B.I to apply for cancellation

of bail in accordance with law in this court. Further, if

it is found that the petitioner is deliberately protracting

the trial or taking unnecessary adjournments then that

by itself would be a ground for cancellation of bail."

Mr. Rohatgi submitted that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are

interfering with the cause of justice so far as conduct of the

trial and IT proceedings are concerned and, therefore, the bail

granted to them is liable to be cancelled. This submission has

no merits in view of the arguments advanced by learned

Solicitor General inviting our attention to the various

documents and annexures etc. to the effect that the

respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have never interfered with the

conduct of trail or with the IT proceedings. It is stated that

respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are deliberately protracting the trial

by taking unnecessary adjournments. Then that itself would

be a ground for cancellation of bail. This argument has no

substance. It is a fact that the matter was adjourned at the

instance of the defence on various occasions. Court itself has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

adjourned the matter for various reasons. We, therefore,

cannot hold that the delay is solely attributable to respondent

Nos. 4 and 5 which, in our opinion, cannot be a ground for

cancellation of bail when it is not proved that any of the bail

conditions has been violated. The delay is attributable to both

the prosecution and the defence and also to the Court.

Therefore, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be held responsible

for the delay.

Mr. Rohatgi argued that Munni Lal Paswan should be

changed from the present place and some other officer should

be posted there. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, at the time of hearing,

explained to this Court as to how and under what

circumstances the earlier incumbent of the office - Mr.

Yogendra Prasad was shifted at his own request and that how

Munni Lal Paswan was promoted recently and posted at Patna

for the conduct of the matters. We summoned the Registrar

General of Patna High Court on 26.07.2006. The Registrar

General Madhusudhan Singh has also filed an affidavit in

regard to the three queries raised by us. The Registrar

General explained to this Court in regard to the practice in the

High Court of Patna and how the matter is placed before the

Standing Committee and the remarks of the inspecting Judges

and the guard files which are maintained separately of each

officers which were made available to the Standing Committee.

The said fact also finds mention in the decision dated

22.06.2005 of the Standing Committee. In regard to query

No.3 the Registrar has submitted as follows:-

"That in regard to Query No.3 of this Hon'ble Court as

mentioned in the order dated 26.7.2006, I respectfully

say and submit that the remarks of the Hon'ble

Inspecting Judge in case of Shri Jawahar Prasad

Ratnesh was of the year 1985, 1986-87, 1988, 2001,

2003 and 2005 (and remarks recorded by P.O.,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna in 1998). In respect of Shri

Ram Niwas Prasad, the remarks recorded by the Hon'ble

Inspecting Judge was of 1985, 1986, 1997 and 2002.

As regards Shri Munni Lal Paswan, the remarks

recorded by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge was of 1985

and 1990 and by Vice-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal,

Patna Bench in 1997."

We have perused the records submitted by the High

Court in regard to the officers including Munni Lal Paswan.

There is absolutely no adverse entry against Munni Lal

Paswan and that poor record if any is not the record of

integrity and that no gradation has been given to officers after

1997 onwards including Paswan.

We have perused the proceedings of the meetings of the

Standing Committee held on 22.06.2005 in the chambers of

the Hon'ble Chief Justice which reads thus:

Proceedings of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 22nd June, 2005 in the

Chambers of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice:

Agenda Decision

To consider the matter regarding Having considered the relevant service

Postings if three Special Judges at records of the officers concerned and also

Patna for C.B.I. (Fodder Scam taking into consideration the fact that

Cases), C.B.I. (South Bihar) and no allegation petition has been recieved

Vigilance Cases(Court No.1) in against Sri Muni Lal Paswan, Additional

Place of S/Shri Yogendra Prasad, District Judge, Saharsa. It is resolved tha

t

Mungeshwar Sahoo and Jitendra let him (Sri Muni Lal Paswan) be posted

Mohan Sharma, respectively(P.F. as Special Judge for C.B.I. (Fodder Scam

XXVII-5-98) Cases) at Patna. It is further resolved upo

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

n

consideration of the relevant service record

s

Of the officers concerned that Sri J.P.

Ratnesh, Additional District Judge, Patna, be

posted as Special Judge, C.B.I. (South

Bihar) and Sri Ram Niwas Prasad,

Additional District Judge, Patna as Special

Judge for Vigilance Case (Court No.1).

In view of the urgency of the matter, the

office is directed to take necessary steps for

issue of notification immediately.

Sd/- Nagendra Rai, Actg, C.J.

Sd/- I.P.Singh, J.A.D. 1

Sd/- R.N. Prasad, J.A.D. II

Sd/- Barin Ghosh, J.

Sd/- M.L. Visa, J.

Sd/- Rajendra Prasad,J."

It is thus seen from the above that all the relevant service

records of the officers concerned including Munni Lal Paswan

was placed before the Standing Committee which took into

consideration the fact that no allegation petition has been

received against Munni Lal Paswan, Addl. District Judge. It

was resolved that Munni Lal Paswan be posted as Special

Judge, CBI Fodder scam cases at Patna. The Registrar

General had also stated at the time of hearing that the

resolution of the Standing Committee was also placed before

the Full Court which also approved the same.

Article 233 of the Constitution of India deals with

subordinate Courts. The appointment of persons, posting and

promotion of District Judges in any State shall be made by the

Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court

exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. Likewise,

under Article 235 the control over district courts and courts

subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of

and the grant of leave to persons belonging to judicial service

of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of District

Judge shall be vested in the High Court.

The appointment of lawyers is the prerogative of the

Government and the prosecuting agency. The petitioners are

trying to find fault with every attempt with every steps taken.

Cases like this the delay is inevitable.

It is also settled law that appointment of advocates,

public prosecutors etc. is the prerogative of the government in

power and court has no role to play.

In the above case, the Standing Committee has taken a

decision to appoint Munni Lal Paswan and other officers after

scrutinizing the records, ACRs etc. in accordance with Article

233 and 235 of the Constitution of India which is the

prerogative right of the Standing Committee and the High

Court and when a decision is taken it is not for this Court to

scrutinize the correctness of the decision that too at the

instance of third parties.

In regard to the prayer of the petitioner to direct the

Government of India to file the appeal in the income-tax

matters, we are of the opinion that the said prayer also cannot

at all be countenanced. In this regard, Section 260 A(1) and

(2)(a) may be referred to which reads as under:

"260A. Appeal to High Court \026 (1) An appeal shall lie to

the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the

Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the

case involves a substantial question of law.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

(2) The Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or an

assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate

Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such

appeal under the sub-section shall be \026

(a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from

the date on which the order appealed against

is received by the assessee or the Chief

Commissioner or Commissioner;

(b) ******

(c) ******"

In this regard, counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of

Finance may be usefully referred to. It is stated in the said

counter affidavit that the matter has been fully considered and

legal opinion was sought by BCIT investigation, Patna and that

the opinion of the learned ASG was received stating that there

is no substantial question of law for filing an appeal and that

the consideration of this aspect had been done properly and

independently and there have been no extraneous

consideration.

This apart, another affidavit was filed by Mr. L.K.Sighvi,

the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (VIII), New Delhi para 1

"I was the Director General IT (Inv.), Patna during the relevant

period when decision was taken regarding filing of appeals

pertaining to the ITAT orders in the cases of Smt. Rabri Devi

and Shri. Lalu Prasad Yadav before the Hon'ble High Court at

Patna. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and the fact that the present petition was pending before this

Hon'ble Court, I thought it fit to refer the matter to the CBDT

for consideration and seeking opinion from the Ministry of

Law. The CBDT and the Ministry of Finance obtained the

opinion of the Ministry of Law to the effect that no substantial

questions of law arose out of the judgments of the ITAT in the

cases of Smt. Rabri Devi and Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav for filing

appeals before the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly,

instructions were issued by me that appeals would not be

filed in respect of these cases.

It is thus seen that the Government of India has taken

into consideration the views of the Ministry of Law, Ministry of

Finance to the effect that no substantial questions of law arise

out of the judgments of the ITAT in the case of respondent

Nos. 4 and 5 for filing appeals before the High Court and that

instructions were issued that appeals would not be filed in

respect of those cases.

Certain allegations have been made against CBDT and

the Public Prosecutors, Members of the Income-tax Tribunal

etc. None of them were made parties before us. Therefore, the

allegations made against them are one-sided and cannot be

looked into at all. We cannot also say that all these

authorities have acted in a mala fide manner.

In our opinion, public interest litigation meant for the

benefit of the lost and lonely and it is meant for the benefit of

those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access

to the Court. We also say that PILs are not meant to advance

the political gain and also settle their scores under the guise of

a public interest litigation and to fight a legal battle. In our

opinion, the liberty of an accused cannot be taken away except

in accordance with the established procedure of law under the

Constitution criminal procedure and other cognate statutes.

We are also of the opinion that PIL is totally foreign to pending

criminal proceedings. The records placed before us would only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

go to show that respondent No.4 had no hand in any of these

matters whether in the appointment of judges or in the change

of the prosecutor or on the decision not to file an appeal in the

income tax cases.

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that both the writ

petitions have no merit and is liable to be dismissed and

accordingly we do so.

In the circumstances, we order no costs. Before

concluding, we say that the petitioners are waging a political

battle against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 through the medium of

Public Interest Litigation. The venue for political battle, in our

opinion, can never be this Court by filing a writ petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

27952