Holding

The Supreme Court held that there is no scope for interference with the High Court's orders and dismissed the appeals.

Summary

A public interest litigation was filed alleging large‑scale malpractice in examinations conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and claiming that the investigating police officer was transferred to pre‑empt the investigation. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, directing that the investigation could continue and that the State Government would act objectively despite the officer's transfer. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the parameters of PILs in service matters, noting that such petitions must meet strict criteria and that the High Court's orders should not be interfered with. The Court held that allegations affecting the image of a statutory body do not justify stalling a transparent investigation, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to overturn the High Court’s disposal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, leaving the High Court’s orders intact.

Issues considered

Whether a public interest litigation can be entertained to question the transfer of a police officer conducting a criminal investigation into alleged examination malpractice.
Whether the High Court's order dismissing the writ petitions can be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Whether allegations that affect the image of a statutory body justify staying or quashing criminal investigations.
What are the parameters for entertaining PILs in service matters under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

public interest litigationservice matterstransfer of police officercriminal investigationMaharashtra Public Service Commissionexamination malpracticeArticle 226judicial interference

Judgment

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
not take adverse view of the stand taken by the officer under transfer
D
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 ofIndia-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,
referred to. G
,,,_ 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 connected matters. In the appeal relating to SLP No.12279/
2006 challenge is to the order in writ petition 482 of2003 while in the r
~
appeal relating to SLP (Cr!.) No. 5498/2006 challenge is to the order in
Cr!. Writ petition No. 1048 of 2006 As noted above, the writ petitions
are linked in the sense that a writ petition was filed by two practicing
E advocate alleging on the basis of some newspaper report that there was
large scale malpractice in the examination conducted by the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission (in short the 'Commission'). ACB C.R.
No.33/2002 was registered and one S.B. Pujari was initially investigating
into the allegations. The writ petitioners alleged that said investigating officer
F had collected material and process of arresting one Smt. Sayalee Joshi ,--\
and others and to pre-empt such acts he was transferred on 31. 1.2003.
From time to time 22 accused persons were arrested. An affidavit was
filed by the then Director General on 12.5 .2006 indicating that investigation
in the said crime no.33/2002 had come to an end. Shri Pujari had filed
G affidavit that the investigation was not yet complete. He had been
transferred by a general transfer order dated 6.9.2006. Shri Anil P. Dhere
filed an affidavit indicating that the investigation is complete. Shri S.B. Pujari "f

requested that more time was required to be granted to him to respond "
the affidavit of Shri Anil P. Dhere. But the High Court did not consider
H that to be necessary. The High Court was of the view that if the Special
SEEMADHAMDHERE, SECRETARY, MPSC v. ST ATE 807
[PASAYAT,J.]
t-
Court before which the matter was pending issued necessary directions, A
' even after conclusion of the investigation if any, further materials can be
collected against any accused persons can be brought on record. The
stand of the Commission was that subsequently there was another case
registered i.e. ACB 7/2006. Prayer was to quash the said proceedings
and to continue investigation in ACB 33/2002. The High Court felt that B
the same shall be considered on merits uninfluenced by orders passed in
Writ Petition no. 482/03. The High Court observed that there was different
perception of investigation between Shri Anil P. Dhere and Shri S.B. Pujari.
The High Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition. The High Court
felt since Shri S.B. Pujari had put in three years in investigating the State c
Government would be objective and would not take any adverse view
of the stand taken by Shri Pujari. It was clarified that affidavit ofShri S.B.
Pujari was not to be used in any other proceedings.
3. In the connected matter the prayer was to quash the first
l information report no.7 of2006 on the ground that crime no.33/2002 was D
t
pending and there was overlapping. The High Court felt that the two were
conceptually different. It was directed that the investigation shall be
conducted fairly under the supervision of Shri G.D. Virk, the Director
General of Police, Bombay and the Commission should cooperate in the
investigation. The Director General was directed to submit progress report E
periodically.
4. Essentially the stand of the learned counsel for the Commission
was that the criminal proceeding has resulted in loss of face for the statutory
'f body. Ultimately it appears that in the name of Public Interest Litigation
F
the transfer of police official has been questioned which is impermissible.
Because of the difference of perception regarding the nature of functions
if any unnecessarily officials of Commission are being entangled. It is ·the
ultimate objective of the Commission to conduct examinations. The
examinations are not being held for a long period.
G
~ r- 5. In response, Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General
for the State submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable because
in a Public Interest Litigation the transfer of an official could not have been
questioned. It is also highlighted that petitions questioning transfer of
respondent no. 7 Ms. Seema P. Dhamdhere, Secretary, MPSC, on the H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
-t
A same plea was mala fide. The said Ms. Seema P. Dhamdhere,has in the
capacity as the Secretaiy ofMPSC filed the SLP no. 12279/2006 in which
leave has been granted. Shri Pujari who had appeared in person submitted
that because he has unearthed certain damaging evidence and materials
which would have exposed placed officials he was being transferred.
B 6. The parameters of Public Interest Litigation in matters of service
have been highlighted by this Court in many cases. In Gurpal Singh v.
State of Punjab and Ors., [2005) 5 SCC 136, it was noted as follow:
"The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest
c litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters
involving service of an employee has been examined by this court
in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the
credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or
nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not
D vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and
seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two ~

conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild
and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and
(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions
seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.
E
In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It
has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing
a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved
by the Constitution to the Executive and t.1.e Legislature. The Court
has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies -'°"\
F or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy
men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to
act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no Interest
of the public or even of their own to protect.

G As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions,
which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence 't
~

somthing else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with
large number of so called public interest litigations where even a
minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest
H litigations. Though the paran1eters of public interest litigation have
SEEMADHAMDHERE,SECRETARY,MPSCv. STATE 809
[PASAYAT,J.]
+"
~
been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful A
of the real intentions and objectives, High Courts are entertaining
such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted
above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases.
Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 114, this Court held that in B
service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-
called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the
Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts
could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision.
The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents c
are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner
came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an
interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that
a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the
petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents.
. , ~
Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the
D
Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to
impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable fot the Courts to
filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-
stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions
E
filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts."
7. In both the cases the affected persons have filed writ petition. It
is true that if the allegations are found to be substantiated it would affect
... the image of Commission. But that cannot be a ground to stall investigation
f
which has to be done in a transparent manner. The credibility of any F
institution depends upon the transparent action of its functionaries. It is
pointed out by the learned counsel for the Commission that it would be
in the interest of all 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 G
y already done. It has been stated that the new Secretary of the Commission
~
has taken over.
8. It is pointed out by the learned Solicitor General that the writ
petition 7/2003 has already been disposed of.
H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A 9. We do not find any scope for interference with the orders passed
by the High Court. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
RP. Appeals disposed of.

;