[2014] 3 S.C.R. 929
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
I. A. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2013
In
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012)
JANUARY 10, 2014
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:
A
B
c
Art. 32 - Writ petition filed purporting to be in public
interest - Judgment - I.A. filed praying for expunction of certain
observations made in the judgment - Held: Expunging of 0
remarks about bona fides of petitioner would not affect the
decision in the writ petition - Prayer allowed - Public Interest
Litigation - Expunction of remarks.
Art. 32 - Writ petition - Judgment - I. A. for directions -
Held: The remarks have been made only for the purpose of E
decision of the writ petition and shall have no bearing on the
service career of the applicant - Interlocutory application -
lmpleadment.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of
i::
2013.
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
G
Mohan Parasaran, SG, Sidharth Luthra, ASG, Shanti
Bhushan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Altaf Ahmed, Prashant Bhushan,
Rohit Kumar Singh, Kartik Seth, Govindjee Kamat, Devadatt
929
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A Kamat, Suruchi Suri, Simar Suri, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli,
Vikramaditya, Senthil Jagadeesan, Govind Manoharan. Gopal
Singh, Rupesh Kumar, Vikas Malhotra, Sushma Suri, Dr. Ashok
Dhamija, V. Mohana, Supriya Juneja, B.V. Balaram Das,
Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra for the appearing parties.
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
I.A. No. 3 and 4
c
The application for impleadment is dismissed.
So far as Dr. Abraham is concerned, we find that the
remarks have been made only for the purpose of decision of
the Writ Petition and shall have no bearing on the service carrier
D of Dr. Abraham.
E
With the above observation, the application for direction
is disposed of.
I.A. No.5
This is an application filed by the petitioner for expunging
certain remarks made in paragraph 63 of the judgment.
We have perused the application, which is supported by
F an affidavit, and heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior
counsel; Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General, Mr.
Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel and Mr. Siddharth
Luthra, learned ASG.
It would appear to us that the observations made about the
G bonafides of the petitioner need to be expunged. Expunging
of such remarks, in our opinion, would not affect the decision
in the Writ Petition and this has also been specifically accepted
by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, we expunge the remarks made that the petitioner
H
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA &
931
ORS.
is "acting at the behest of some other interested parties". We A
also expunge the remarks that the petitioner may have filed the
petition with an "ulterior motive at the interest of some other
person". Furthermore, the remarks that the petitioner may be
acting as a "surrogate for some powerful phantom lobbies shall
also be expunged". The remarks that "the petitioner had earlier B
filed writ petitions, in which identical relief had been claimed
and the same had been dismissed", shall also be expunged.
Furthermore, the remark that the petitioner is a "stool pigeon"
and acting on the directions of some business houses is also
expunged.
c
With these observations, this application is disposed of.
R.P.
Applications disposed of.
Lex