LexGIANI DEVENDAR SINGH SANT SEPOY SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GIANI DEVENDAR SINGH SANT SEPOY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER JANUARY 4, 1995 [P.B. SAWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) Public Interest Litigation-General and wide allegations about corrup- tion and clandestine activities-Petitioner inter alia alleging smuggling of nar- cotic drugs by owners of a certain oil mill-High Court order making general and sweeping observation~Held, High Court should not have issued man- date in general and sweeping tenns. which were not intended to be implemented nor capable of being implemented because of its vagueness and inherent ab- surdity-DGP of State, however, required to enquire into truth of allegations of smuggling and illegal activities in oil mill. A B c Judiciary-Sweeping allegations against members of Judiciary-Held, D while such allegations are to be deprecated, given the utter confusion and obsession of petitioner, no serious view of such allegations made against members of judiciary taken-Pleadings-PIL. A PIL filed in the MP High Court alleged inter alia that clandestine E business of smuggling and selling narcotic drugs was being carried on in an oil mill near the Gurudwara where the petitioner and his wife were Sevadars. It was prayed that a direction be issued to whomsoever it may concern to stop this clandestine business of smuggling, and to direct the Union Government to make arrangements for the export of these costly items in order to conserve foreign exchange so that the country's finances F may be revived. The High Court, on 27 February 1992, observed that how- ever absurd the prayer and whatever be the intention of the petitioner in filing the petition, it was clear that the petitioner was obsessed with great and lofty ideals. To satisfy his vanity, therefore, the High Court made certain general directions to prevent smuggling, to sack tliose officers who G were carrying on these activities and to overhaul the entire administrative +- machinery of the country. In 1993, the petitioner approached the High Court complaining that the concerned authorities had not complied with the direction of the High Court. Complaints made by the petitioner to various authorities was H 27 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1995] 1 S.C.R. A referred to. A Division Bench held that the direction contained in the order dated 27 February 1992 was of a general nature, and in view of the general -.-,r allegations against all concerned made by the petitioner, no relief could be ~ granted. In appeal before this Court, the petitioner referred to his complaints B before various executive and judicial authorities, and in particular alleged that a named judge was dishonest, communal and corrupt and that the ; judicial officers before whom the complaints had been presented, failed to y take action because of patronage of that judge. There was also a prayer for a direction for implementation of Hindi as a national language. c Dismissing the petition, this Court ,- I HELD : 1. When the High Court was of the view that the prayer made by the petitioner was absurd, it should not have made a direction in general and sweeping terms. If the High Court intends to pass an order on an D application presented before it by treating it as public interest litigation, the High Court must precisely indicate the allegations or the statements contained in such petition relating to public interest litigation and should indicate how public interest was involved and only after ascertaining the correctness of the allegation, should give specific direction as may seem E just and proper in the facts of the case. It appears that the High Court disposed of the petition in a lighter vein and its order is couched in veiled sarcasm. Such course of action is not desirable and the High Court should not have issued mandate in general and sweeping terms which were not intended to be implemented and were not capable of being implemented because of utter vagueness of the mandate and of its inherent absurdity. [34-F-H, 35-A-B] '> F 2. The petition presented before this Court lacks in material par- ticulars and it is also very difficult to discern precisely the allegations sought to be made. Reference to various cases made in different courts have been made without giving relevant particulars. It is therefore not possible G to appreciate whether such complaints were maintainable or not and whether on not orders passed on the complaints were justified. [35-F] -+ 3. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.