LexSEEMA DHAMDHERE, SECRETARY, MPSC versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SEEMADHAMDHERE, SECRETARY, MPSC t v. ' STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. DECEMBER 14, 2007 B [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] '( Public Interest Litigation: c Writ petition alleging large scale malpractice in examination conducted by State Public Service Commission-Registering of criminal cases-Transfer of investigating officer-High Court observing that the State Government would be objective and would D not take adverse view of the stand taken by the officer under transfer and investigation would be conducted fairly-HELD: Parameters of public interest litigation in service matters have been highlighted in .\ several decisions by Supreme Court-There is no scope for interference with orders passed by High Court-Constitution of India-Article 226. E A writ petition was filed under public interest litigation alleging large scale malpractice in the examination conducted by Maharashtra Public Service Commission. It was stated that in order to pre-empt the outcome of the investigation in the criminal case no. ACB CR 33/2002 the Investigating Officer was transferred. An F affidavit was filed by the Director General of Police that investigation ·"" in CR 33/2002 had come to an end. The said Investigating Officer filed an affidavit that the investigation was not yet complete. The stand of the Commission was that subsequently another case being ACB No. 7/2006 was registered. Prayer was made to quash said G proceedings and to continue investigation in ACB 33/2003. The High Court disposed of the writ petition observing that if the Special Court, before which the matter was pending, issued necessary directions ... .. even after conclusion of investigation if any, further materials could be collected against any accused and brought on record. The High H 804 SEEMADHAMDHERE,SECRETARY,MPSCv. STATE 805 t Court also observed that since the investigating officer under A • transfer had put in three years service in investigation, the State Government would be objective and would nottake any adverse view of the stand taken by him. In the connected matter seeking to quash FIR in ACB 7 /2006, the High Court directed that the two matters were conceptually different and the investigation would be conducted B fairly by the Director General of Police and the Commission would cooperate in the investigation. In the instant appeals it was contended for the Commission that the criminal proceedings were affecting the image of the statutory body and in the name of public interest litigation transfer of police c official was questioned which was impermissible. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: The parameters of Public Interest Litigation in matters of service have been highlighted by this Court in many cases. In both D 1 ~ the cases the affected persons have filed writ petitions. It is true that if the allegations are found to be substantiated it would affect the image of the Commission. But that cannot be a ground to stall investigation which has to be done in a transparent manner. The credibility of any institution depends upon the transparent action of E its functionaries. It is pointed out on behalf of the Commission that it would be in the interest ofall concerned if the examinations which are said to have been not held for nearly five years are held early. The process of selection of the Chairman and the members would ~ )._ be initiated forthwith if not already done. It has been stated that the F new Secretary of the Commission has taken over. There is no scope for interference with the orders passed by the High Court. [Para 6 and 7] [808-B; 809-E-G; 810-A] Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., [2005] 5 SCC 136, G referred to. ,,,_ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5954 of ' 2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.6.2006 and 5.7.2006 H 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A of the High Comt of Bombay in Notice of Motion No. 265 of2006 in -f Writ Petition No. 482 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 482 of 2003 .. respectively. WITH B Crl. A. No. 176 of 2007. V.A. Mohta, Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar and Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant. -y' Goolarn E. Vahanvati, S.G.Senthil Jagadeesan and R.K. Adsure for c the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These two appeals are inter-connected in the sense that they have D their matrix in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.