SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 05-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
811
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 695 of 2021)
OCTOBER 05, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Judgment/Order: Reasoned judgment – Requirment to give
reasons in the judgment/order – Grievance of the appellants is that
the reasoning for the impugned judgment was given and published
long after its operative portion was pronounced – The operative
portion of the judgment was pronounced on 27.06.2019 – The
reasons were published on 05.10.2020 – Held: High Court’s conduct
in not furnishing reasons, either at the time of pronouncement of
the operative part of the judgment, or before the commencement of
the next working day (of the court) strongly deprecated – Judicial
deprecation.
Public interest litigation: Impugned judgment passed in writ
petition filed as Public interest litigation (PIL) challenged by the
appellants on the ground that the PIL was motivated – Held: There
is no doubt, that PIL is meant to be entertained, for bona fide causes,
and not to aid either misguided individuals in their quest for publicity,
or for wreaking vendetta on public officials or institutions – The
cause espoused by the writ petitioners was undoubtedly one of public
interest, because it concerned housing for the economically
disadvantaged sections of society, in such great numbers – The
scheme was meant to benefit thousands of persons, and over a
thousand housing units were to be constructed and allotted to the
beneficiaries – In view of the inquiries and the reports, conducted
and prepared during the proceedings, the initiation of public interest
proceedings, were justified, having regard to the contents of such
reports – Even if the public interest litigants’ motives were ambiguous,
or not immediately bona fide, that could not have led to dismissal of
the writ petition, before the High Court – The objection as to lack
of standing of the public interest litigants, therefore, is without merit
– Housing.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 811
811
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Public interest litigation: Housing scheme – Allegations of
failure and neglect on the part of the municipal authorities in regard
to completion of the scheme – In the criminal public interest
litigation, the respondents (PIL petitioners) sought directions to the
Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Housing
and Urban Development Authority (MHADA) and state officials to
initiate criminal proceedings against the responsible officers and
office bearers of Municipal Council, Naldurg and concerned
contractors for misappropriation of government funds in
implementation of the housing scheme in the municipality – The PIL
petitioners had alleged the utter mismanagement in terms of which
as many as 1.05 lakh dwelling units were to be constructed and
handed over to the eligible individuals – The scheme contemplated
a substantial funding by the central government and the rest of the
funding to be borne by the allottees – As against the targeted 1206
housing units to be constructed, 737 beneficiaries belonged to the
reserved category and the rest to the general category – Inspection
reports and affidavits of MHADA as well as the Divisional
Commissioner revealed that only 302 housing units were constructed
in different localities in Naldurg, of which 202 could be used and
100 were in an unusable and dilapidated condition – The affidavits
filed on behalf of authorities revealed that excess payments of
`1,52,81,846/- and `90,97,771/- were made – After taking note of
affidavit of the Commissioner, High Court disposed of PILs directing
the respondents to take steps in light of the reports, and action
outlined in the affidavit, “to its logical end” as expeditiously as
possible – In the instant appeal, the main argument of the appellant
was that criminal proceedings were initiated against them even
though they were not heard in the public interest proceedings, and
that being adverse to them the judgment was vitiated on account of
their non-participation – Held: High Court had not by itself directed
initiation of investigation nor did it direct registration of an FIR –
High Court had directed respondents to take steps in light of their
reports, and action outlined in the affidavit, “to its logical end” –
The material on record before the High Court in the form of
inspection report and further materials including the Divisional
Commissioner’s affidavit, showed irregularities of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.