Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s delay in furnishing reasons, while condemnable, does not invalidate its order; the PIL was bona‑fide, the directions did not unlawfully compel prosecution, and the appeals fail.

Summary

The appellants challenged a Bombay High Court order that disposed of two public‑interest litigations concerning a housing scheme in Naldurg, alleging that the court failed to give reasons for its operative part and that they were not heard before criminal proceedings were initiated against them. The Supreme Court noted that the operative portion was pronounced on 27‑06‑2019 but reasons were only published on 05‑10‑2020, a delay that is strongly deprecated but does not invalidate the order. It held that the PIL was filed in bona‑fide public interest despite alleged political motives, and that the High Court’s direction to the Divisional Commissioner to "take steps to its logical end" did not amount to an order to prosecute. The Court also affirmed that, under Lalita Kumari, cognizable offences disclosed in the material justify registration of an FIR without a preliminary enquiry. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, with the High Court’s order left standing, though its conduct in not furnishing reasons was condemned.

Issues considered

The High Court’s failure to provide reasons for its operative order at the time of pronouncement or before the next working day.
Whether the public‑interest litigations were motivated and lacked standing, warranting dismissal.
Whether appellants, not parties to the PIL, should have been heard before criminal proceedings were initiated against them.
Whether the direction to the Divisional Commissioner to "take steps to its logical end" amounted to an unlawful order to commence criminal prosecution.
Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings can be quashed on procedural grounds.

Subjects

public interest litigationnatural justicereasons in judgmenthousing schemecriminal proceedingsFIRstandingprocedural fairness

Judgment

[2021] 11 S.C.R. 811 811

SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN A
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 695 of 2021)
OCTOBER 05, 2021 B
[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
C
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 D
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, E
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
F
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, G
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.
H
811
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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
D
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
E `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
F
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
G 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 a severe nature
– The constructions, according to the reports, were sub-standard in
respect of 100 such houses, so severe that the units were unusable
H
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 813
MAHARASHTRA

– The main objective of providing housing to 1206 eligible and A
deserving families remained unfulfilled despite expenditure of
substantial amounts – In the circumstances, the argument of the
appellants that they ought to have been heard even before action
was initiated, does not commend to this Court; it is not sound –
There were materials suggesting serious irregularities – The
B
government allowed the Divisional Commissioner to affirm in the
affidavit filed by him that criminal proceedings would be initiated –
In such circumstances, the observations of the High Court to take
the matter to the logical end have to be, therefore, construed in that
context – Whether the allegations are true or whether the
submissions on behalf of the petitioners justified their conduct or C
omission is something upon which the High Court could not and
correctly did not comment – As far as the FIR itself was concerned,
the police had no choice given the imperative nature of the law
declared in Lalita Kumari where a preliminary enquiry ordinarily is
to be eschewed whenever cognizable offences are reported – Thus,
D
the impugned order not interfered with.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The first 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 E
portion of the judgment was pronounced on 27.06.2019. The
reasons were published on 05.10.2020. It is clear that the High
Court’s order, against which an aggrieved litigant has a right to
approach this court, under special leave jurisdiction, should
contain reasons, without which it would be well-nigh impossible
to exercise that right of seeking special leave, and in many cases, F
urged ad-interim and, possibly, ex-parte relief. In this case, the
High Court should have furnished the reasons for the operative
portion of its order. To that extent, the appellants’ grievance is
justified. This court is however reluctant to hold – having regard
to the circumstances and the facts on the record - that the absence G
of reasons struck at the legitimacy of the impugned judgment. It
caused prejudice no doubt, to the extent that the appellants were
unable to furnish grounds on which their special leave petitions
were based. However, that prejudice stood off-set with the interim
orders of this court, which recognized the piquancy of the situation,
H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A and directed stay of further action against the appellants. In view
of these special circumstances, the impugned order should not
be set aside. However, the 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) is strongly deprecated.
B
[Para 25][827-E-H; 828-A-B]
2.1 The appellant’s next challenge to the impugned
judgment is the ground that the public interest litigation was
motivated, and that they were not parties. There is no doubt,
that public interest litigation is meant to be entertained, for bona
C fide causes, and not to aid either misguided individuals in their
quest for publicity, or for wreaking vendetta on public officials or
institutions. It was urged that the said writ petitioners were
councillors, and politically motivated. That fact is insufficient to
allow the appeals. The cause espoused by the said individuals
D 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
E proceedings, there could have been no manner of doubt that the
initiation of public interest proceedings, were justified, having
regard to the contents of such reports. In the present case, even
if the public interest litigants’ motives were ambiguous, or not
immediately bona fide, that could not have led to dismissal of the
F writ petition, before the High Court. The objection as to lack of
standing of the public interest litigants, therefore, is without merit.
[Paras 26, 27, 29][828-C, D-E; 830-G-H; 831-A-C]
Jasbhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar [1976] 3 SCR 58;
Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation v
G Unon of India & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 780 – relied on.
2.2 The record thus discloses that two PILs had been filed
containing somewhat similar allegations, i.e. the failure and
neglect on the part of the municipal authorities of Naldurg in

H
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 815
MAHARASHTRA

regard to completion of the scheme. The public interest litigants A
had alleged the utter mismanagement of IHSDP 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
B
1206 housing units to be constructed, 737 beneficiaries belonged
to the reserved category and the rest to the general category.
The cost of construction was estimated to be `16,08,91,396/-.
The total cost was `20,69,04,514/-. Eventually, the material in
the form of inspection reports and affidavits of MHADA as well
as the Divisional Commissioner revealed that only 302 housing C
units were constructed in different localities in Naldurg, of which
202 could be used and 100 were in an unusable and dilapidated
condition. The proceedings before the High Court led to the
inspection as well as the verification of accounts as a consequence
of which the affidavits filed on behalf of the authorities revealed
D
that excess payments of `1,52,81,846/- and `90,97,771/- were
made. [Para 30][831-C-G]
3. The main arguments of the appellants are that criminal
proceedings have been initiated against them even though they
were not heard in the public interest proceedings, and that being
adverse to them the judgment is vitiated on account of their non- E
participation. A grievance is also made out that of the dwelling
units constructed by the contractors, no deficiency was pointed
out by the public agency, i.e. the municipality and that even civil
action stood precluded because the contractual liability period
had lapsed. The impugned judgment disposed of both the PILs. F
Essentially, the first direction issued by the High Court, i.e. to
the Divisional Commissioner to take steps referred to in affidavit
in reply in general and para 8 in particular “to its logical end as
expeditiously as possible” appears to be the rub in this case
inasmuch as the appellants grouse is that it has led to lodging of
an FIR. The affidavit recounted the objections of the IHSDP G
scheme and indicated the state of affairs with respect to the
completed dwelling units, i.e. 302 houses. The affidavit cited
the report dated 20.04.2019 and the steps recommended in
the meeting of the Committee on 22.04.2019. [Paras 31, 32]
[831-G-H; 832-A-D] H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 4.1 It is quite evident that the High Court did not by itself
direct initiation of investigation nor did it direct registration of
an FIR. The Divisional Commissioner had deposed those
instructions had been given to take such steps. The High Court,
therefore, ordered that those steps be taken to their logical end.
Whilst the reasoning for the impugned judgment was undoubtedly
B
published after a long and unexplained delay, the effect of its
operative directions were not to per se prosecute. It merely
required the Divisional Commissioner to take the necessary steps,
which were not limited to the launching of criminal prosecution
but also taking steps towards reconstruction of the flats for the
C intended beneficiaries. It is further a matter of record that when
the FIR was lodged in December 2019, all the present appellants
– all of whom were not before the High Court - were named as
accused. Another important fact which requires to be noticed is
that several of these appellants had approached this Court on
the ground that their applications for anticipatory bail had been
D
rejected; they filed special leave petitions along with applications
to file for special leave since they were not parties in the High
Court. Those proceedings were entertained and this court had
granted interim orders protecting them from coercive action.
[Paras 33, 34][833-C-G]
E 4.2 The material on record before the High Court in the
form of inspection report dated 20.04.2019 and further materials
including the Divisional Commissioner’s affidavit, showed
irregularities of a severe nature. The constructions, according
to the reports, were sub-standard – in respect of 100 such houses,
F so severe that the units were unusable. The main objective of
providing housing to 1206 eligible and deserving families remains
unfulfilled despite expenditure of substantial amounts. In the
circumstances, the argument of the appellants that they ought to
have been heard even before action was initiated, does not
commend to this Court; it is not sound. [Para 35][833-G-H;
G 834-A-B]
5. In the present case, there were materials suggesting
serious irregularities. The government allowed the Divisional
Commissioner to affirm in the affidavit filed by him on 12.06.2019
that criminal proceedings would be initiated. In such
H circumstances, the observations of the High Court to take the
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 817
MAHARASHTRA

matter to the logical end have to be, therefore, construed in that A
context. Whether the allegations are true or whether the
submissions on behalf of the petitioners justified their conduct
or omission is something upon which the High Court could not,
and in the opinion of this court correctly, did not comment. As far
as the FIR itself was concerned, the police had no choice given
B
the imperative nature of the law declared in Lalita Kumari where
a preliminary enquiry ordinarily is to be eschewed whenever
cognizable offences are reported. [Para 36]834-G-H; 835-A-B]
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013]
14 SCR 713 – followed.
C
Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr v. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 5758 Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaixhu Xie & Ors. (2020) SCC
Online SC 1145; Sudipta Chakrobarty & Anr. v.
Ranaghat S.D. Hospital & Ors. AIR 2021 SC 3344;
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Satya Narain Kapoor (dead) by D
Lrs. & Ors (2004) 8 SCC 630; State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors (2010) 3 SCC 402 :
[2010] 1 SCR 678 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2004) 8 SCC 630 referred to Para 14 E
[2010] 1 SCR 678 referred to Para 15
[1976] 3 SCR 58 relied on Para 27
(2017) 16 SCC 780 relied on Para 28
[2013] 14 SCR 713 followed Para 35 F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.695 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Public Interest Litigation
No.70 of 2014. G
With
Civil appeal nos. 696, 1157, 700, 699, 698, 1158, 697, 1156, 604,
605 and 603 of 2021.

H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A Shyam Divan, Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Advs., Nishant
Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Anish R. Shah, Samir
Patel, Brij Kishor Sah, Ms. Qurratulain, Aditya S. Jadhav, Nicholas
Choudhury, Shiv Ram Pandey, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Dr. R. R.
Deshpande, Abhay Anil Anturkar, M/s Dr. R. R. Deshpande And
Associates, Pai Amit, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande,
B
Geo Joseph, Sanjay Upadhyay, Mrs. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom
Raghuvanshi, Salik Shafique, Shrikishan Shinde, Kazi Sangay Thupden,
Viddusshi Shandilya, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Sushant
Dogra, Rahat Bansal, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appearing
Parties.
C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Special leave granted in all the petitions. The appeals were
heard with consent of counsel appearing for the parties to these
D proceedings.
2. The grievance of the appellants in these batch of appeals is
with respect to a common judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the
Bombay High Court.1 In the criminal public interest litigation, the
respondents (original writ petitioners, hereafter “PIL petitioners”) sought
E 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 (hereafter
“municipality”) and concerned contractors for misappropriation of
government funds in implementation of the housing scheme in the
F municipality. Some appellants had filed criminal petitions, opposing the
criminal proceedings, which were disposed of.
3. The PIL petitioners claimed to be social activists and former
Councillors of the municipality who were involved in social activities,
reforms and reconstruction of the society which included running a library
G (Lokmanya Book Library at Naldurg). They had also organized various
camps like literacy camp for illiterate people, chalice (Panpoi) at public
places during summer season, etc.
1
dated 27.06.2019 in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 6/ 2018, with Public
Interest Litigation No. 70/2014 and Criminal Application Nos. 2075, 2091 and 2107/
H 2019.
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 819
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

4. The Union of India implemented the Integrated Housing and A
Slum Development Programme (IHSDP), through the State Government,
under the “Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission”
(hereafter “the Mission”) for providing basic services to the urban poor
including security of tenure of affordable prices, improved housing, water
supply, sanitation and ensuring delivery through convergence of other
B
existing universal services of the government for education, health and
social security. The Mission also aimed to ensure that the urban poor
were provided housing. The scheme applies to all cities/towns under the
Mission. The guidelines for Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP)
and IHSDP were issued in December 2005; pursuant to which, the state
government appointed urban local bodies as nodal agencies. In this case, C
MHADA is the nodal agency.
5. In terms of a government resolution dated 03.02.2009, the
construction cost for each dwelling house unit was `80,000/-. The
minimum floor area of such dwelling house was to be 25 sq. metres at a
minimum, with two rooms, a kitchen and a toilet bathroom. The funds D
for implementing the said scheme were in the ratio of 80:20 (between
the Central Government and the State Government-Urban Local Bodies).
Further, beneficiaries under the scheme had to contribute a minimum
12%, and in case of reserved category the contribution was to be 10%.
The nodal agency designated for implementation of the said scheme E
was responsible for inviting proposals from urban local bodies and thus,
Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 – which are the nodal agencies - were
responsible for and had control over implementation of the scheme within
the state government. Naldurg in Osmanabad district was included under
the scheme of IHSDP for providing houses to the poor people.
F
6. Pursuant to the scheme, a detailed project report was prepared,
in terms of which 1206 houses for the poor were to be constructed. 737
beneficiaries belonging to reserved category and 469 from general
category were identified as beneficiaries of the project. The cost of
each house was fixed at `1,00,551/-; the total cost of the project was
fixed at `20,69,04,514/-, of which cost for construction was `16,08,91,396/ G
- and `4,11,17,000/- was the cost towards infrastructure. The municipality
published a tender notice2. The estimated cost of the work in the tender
was `15,08,91,396/- and the time stipulated for completion of construction

2
In the “Daily Sakal”, in its issue dated 26.08.2008. H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A of 1206 dwelling units was 18 calendar months, including the monsoon
season. Though the last date for opening of tender bids was 22.09.2008,
the municipality did not wait till that date and the offers were placed
before its special general meeting held on 20.09.2008. Respondent No.
8’s tender- being the lowest- was to be accepted and work order was to
be issued in its favour after accepting their security deposit. On 22.09.2008
B formalities for execution of lease agreement between the state and the
municipality, leasing lands at Survey Nos. 29 and 236 (measuring 20
hectares and 20 ares) for implementation of the scheme, were completed.
The municipality issued the work order on 07.10.2008 and the same day
an agreement was entered into between the municipality and the private
C respondent; the municipality released 12% of the total cost, i.e.,
`1,44,00,000/- as mobilization advance to Respondent No. 9 on 20.12.
2008.
7. The PIL petitioners alleged that though in terms of the contract,
Respondent No. 9 had to construct 1206 house units within 18 months,
as on the date of filing of the litigation it had constructed only 30 units.
D They alleged that the quality of work carried out by Respondent No. 9
was very poor and the officials (i.e. MHADA, municipality, etc.) did not
inspect or supervise the work, and did not submit the quarterly reports
as required under the scheme. While MHADA had issued notices to the
municipality from time to time directing it to submit quarterly progress
E report, the latter had not complied. Contrary to the directions of the
central and state governments, the municipality diverted the funds meant
for the said development project, for other works. It was submitted that
despite the requirement that the work of infrastructure be carried out
only after completion of 50% of construction of dwelling house units,
Respondent No. 7 straightaway allotted the work of infrastructure in
F favour of Respondent No. 10 prior to achieving such a stage of
construction and without inviting any intenders from the contractors
authorized by MHADA. Various irregularities, such as higher fixation of
price of dwelling house, i.e., `1,00,551/- instead of ` 80,000/-, failure to
complete the project, and various other omissions were alleged. The
PIL petitioners also relied on reports dated 04.11.2018 and 15.03.2012,
G respectively.
8. After considering the pleadings of the PIL petitioners, and the
official respondents, the court, on 02.04.2019 issued the following
directions:
“The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division,
H Aurangabad, shall convene a meeting of Collector,
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 821
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Osmanabad and other officers including technical persons A
from MHADA, who is acting as a Nodal agency, the Chief
Officer of the Municipal Council, Naldurg, within a period
of four weeks from today and shall appraise this Court by
filing an affidavit as regards the steps he propose to take in
the matter of implementing the scheme and in question; in
B
addition to looking into the irregularities and action to be
initiated against the defaulters. Let this exercise be completed
by June 17, 2019, by filing an affidavit by the Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.”.
9. Pursuant to the above order, the Divisional Commissioner filed
his affidavit inter alia stating that for proper action, by order dated C
05.04.2019, he had constituted a committee under the chairmanship of
the Chief Officer of the MHADA, along with the other four members3
for spot inspection and to submit a status report regarding implementation
of the scheme and other related information. He deposed also that the
said committee submitted its report on 20.04.2019 listing several illegalities D
and irregularities connected with the implementation of the scheme, and
proposed remedial action. It was stated that the committee suggested
that since both the schemes i.e., IHSDP and Basic Services to Urban
Poor had ended on 31.03.2017, the unallotted houses constructed under
the said scheme may be made available under the Pradhan Mantri Awas
Yojna (PMAY) in view of the G.R. dated 25.09.2019. It was further E
suggested that-
a) 155 houses constructed by the municipality required minor
repairs, after such repairs they could be allotted to the
original eligible beneficiaries under the provisions of G.R.
dated 25.09.2018. F
b) 45 houses needing major repairs to be allotted to eligible
beneficiaries under the said G.R. as per the scheme.
c) 100 houses constructed at Vasant Nagar that could not be
repaired were to be demolished. After preparing the new
report under the PMAY, houses were to be constructed G
and allotted to the eligible beneficiaries under the scheme.

3
a) Regional Deputy Director Municipal Administration, Officer of Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad, b)Executive Engineer, MHADA Aurangabad, c) Assistant
Director, Reconciliation, Office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, d) Accounts
Officer, Municipal Administration, Office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 10. The affidavit also referred to a meeting of officials on
22.04.2019 conducted pursuant to directions of the court, wherein the
committee’s report was considered, after which the Divisional
Commissioner issued the following directions:
i) The Collector, Osmanabad to conduct the technical valuation
B of the work done under her supervision and submit a report
regarding work construction of houses and basic amenities
along with quality. For this purpose, the Commissioner
constituted a committee chaired by the Executive Engineer,
MHADA under the overall supervision of the Collector,
Osmanabad.
C
ii) If financial irregularities had occurred, amounts were to be
recovered from the person(s) responsible for it.
iii) After receipt of the technical committee’s report, action
against those responsible for irregularities was to be taken
D as per law.
11. The Collector, Osmanabad submitted her report dated
03.06.2019, which stated that directions were issued to the Chief Officer
of the municipality to recover the excess amount paid to the contractors,
to black list them for Government work, and also to initiate criminal
E prosecution against those who committed irregularities. The Chief Officer
of the municipality was also directed to allot houses that could be repaired,
in terms of prescribed procedure, under the PMAY and report compliance.
12. After taking note of another affidavit of the Commissioner’s
dated 12.06.2019, the High Court disposed of the public interest litigations
F on 27.06.2019 directing the respondents to take steps in light of the reports,
and action outlined in paragraph 8 of the affidavit, “to its logical end”
as expeditiously as possible. The Divisional Commissioner of Aurangabad
was also to decide whether the scheme could be completed “by taking
recourse to any other housing scheme” floated by the central or state
government. The court held that there was no reason for it to entertain
G any criminal applications, and accordingly rejected them.
Contentions of parties
13. Mr. Shyam Divan, senior counsel for one of the appellants,
argued that the operative part of the impugned judgment was pronounced
on 27.06.2019; however, the reasons were uploaded on 05.10.2020 after
H
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 823
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

a report was called from the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court at its A
Aurangabad Bench. The time gap between the pronouncement and the
operative part of the reasons is a year and over three months. In view of
the recent judgments of this Hon’ble Court in Balaji Baliram Mupade
& Anr v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.4, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Zaixhu Xie & Ors. 5 and Sudipta Chakrobarty & Anr. v.
B
Ranaghat S.D. Hospital & Ors.6, the impugned order requires to be
set aside and the matter be remanded back to the High Court for fresh
consideration, by further direction for addition of the appellants as
respondents.
14. It was argued by counsel for the appellants, that the High
C
Court fell into error in failing to notice that neither were the appellants
party respondents in the Public Interest Litigations, nor were they heard.
That fact ipso facto is sufficient to set aside the impugned order since it
is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Had the appellants been
heard, they would have showed the High Court that they were in no
way concerned with the alleged offence. In this regard, reliance is placed D
on State of U.P. & Anr. v. Satya Narain Kapoor (dead) by Lrs. &
Ors7. Counsel emphasized that the lack of opportunity to be heard, has
resulted in grave prejudice to the appellants as the respondents have
construed the impugned judgment as directions, requiring them to initiate
criminal proceedings, which have in fact been acted upon. It was urged
E
that some of the appellants were constrained to seek anticipatory bail,
which was refused, leading them to approach this court. In this regard,
learned counsel were at pains to argue that the first information report
(FIR) was filed on 02.12.2019 as a direct consequence of orders of the
court made on 16.11.2019 and 21.11.2019.
F
15. It was argued that the petitions which led to the impugned
judgment are an instance of misuse of public interest litigation. It was
highlighted that the petitioners before the High Court were politically
motivated individuals. In fact, not a single beneficiary from the housing
scheme came forward to allege illegalities in the scheme. Therefore,
filing of a criminal public interest litigation, contempt petition etc. clearly G
showed that such legal action was motivated by mala-fides and were

4
AIR 2020 SC 5758
5
(2020) SCC Online SC 1145
6
AIR 2021 SC 3344
7
(2004) 8 SCC 630 H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A politically malicious. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the High Court
to follow the guidelines laid down by this court in the case of State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors8.
16. It is urged that the appellants cannot be accused of committing
any illegality, since clause 20 of the tender document stipulates the defect
B liability period to be 60 months, for civil work. The public interest litigations
were filed after the defect liability period, which clearly pointed to ulterior
motive of the PIL petitioners. Counsel underlined the fact that neither
the municipality, nor the government had initiated any legal or civil action
for recovery of any amounts, from the appellants. In these circumstances,
the impugned judgment, inasmuch as it gave undue credence to a report
C furnished to the Commissioner, is in error of law.
17. The state and MHADA argue that an Audit Committee was
formed to audit the funds released for BSUP/IHSDP scheme pursuant
to its inspection under the Mission. The Report of the committee was
submitted on 19.11.2014. It stated that funds were released by MHADA/
D state government to the municipality for the said scheme on 17.09.2014
and 18.09.2014. A total of `9,29,17,000/- was made available to the
municipality through Aurangabad Board by MHADA for the IHSDP
Program. Of this fund, a payment of `1,44,00,000/- was given to the
Respondent No.11 towards mobilisation advance and the entire amount
E was later recovered from the RA Bills.
18. It was highlighted that out of the fund of `9,29,17,000/- received
from the central government, recovery from beneficiaries and interest
accrued aggregated to `10,25,62,318/-. The municipal council spent
`9,43,33,553/- and the balance left was `82,28,765/-. In terms of the
F standards set by the central government, expenditures were to be made
as per the share of beneficiaries and share of the council. However, the
entire amount was spent from the funds received from the central and
state government. It was found that for the construction of 302 tenements,
`3,03,51,000/- (`1,00,500 each) was to be spent in total but actually
`5,75,47,141/- was spent. The recovery from beneficiaries was to be
G made; yet recoveries were made only from 40 beneficiaries.
19. It was submitted that during spot visits (on 17 and 18 September
2014) of the tenements, it was found that construction had long since
stopped. It was also found that the municipality had undertaken the
8
H (2010) 3 SCC 402
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 825
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

construction of 302 tenements in five slum areas. The implementation A
period ended on 31.03.2015 and it was not possible to meet the deadlines.
The external works were complete. The committee advised the
municipality to allot the tenements immediately because of loss due to
lack of security and non-allotment damage.
20. The respondents submitted that though work had stopped for B
over many years, yet amounts were withdrawn from these accounts
throughout the years, leading to the inference that funds were utilized
elsewhere. Further, submitted counsel, it was found in the spot inspection
and joint measurement from a period of 02.05.2019 to 04.05.2019, that
out of 1206 tenements, 302 were complete houses and 26 were
incomplete houses (in Vasant Nagar external plaster for 8 tenements C
was not done). The DPR consisted of cement concrete road, gutters,
water supply, electrification and was inspected in terms of the provisions
and actual work done. The inspection was done using core cutters, digging,
etc. at various places. It was found that thickness of roads was less than
quoted in the estimates and bill books. In Shivkarwadi, excess work was D
done beyond the DPR map, the payment for which was already made.
The layer of seal coat was not found. Essential connections were not
made to external electrification. Water pipelines laid down in Vasant
Nagar, Filter and Shivkarwadi colonies were not connected with the
OHR, and became useless. The thickness of slabs was uneven at some
places. It was found that a compliance report was also not made available E
for the recommendations made from time to time by M/s. SGS India
Private Ltd, Hyderabad, a third party, for inspection.
21. It was urged that valuation of work was made in the Inquiry
Report after necessary inspection and joint measurements. There was a
discrepancy between the amount paid to the contractor, tenement and F
external amenities wise as per the Measurement Book, and the amount
calculated as per actual site condition during the joint measurement on
02.05.2019 to 04.05.2019. The observations made by the technical team,
showed that the municipal council made an excess payment of
`2,43,79,017/- to the contractors as compared to the work done. Out of G
this, an excess amount of `1,52,81,246/- was allegedly paid to M/s. Minar
Constructions, Latur and `90,97,771/-, allegedly to Shri Sanjay Sudhakar
Rajhans, Latur.
22. It was argued that the report stated that in terms of the
government resolution dated 25.06.2007 for IHSDP, the municipality H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A implements the project, and is tasked with the responsibility to prepare
project reports, execute the tripartite MOA with DPR and to select the
beneficiary. The municipality also hands over possession and discharges
all responsibilities. M/s. Saya Engineers, Latur was appointed as the
Project Management Consultant (PMC) and entrusted with recording
works done in Measurement Book, verification of the day-to-day work
B
and giving technical advice. There was dereliction of duties by public
officials and the PMC, by not paying the contractors for the actual work
done. The City Engineer too was responsible for verifying the
measurements made by the PMC and had to attest it, but failed to do so
in this case. The Chief Officer of the municipality, was also responsible
C as he failed to record his opinion before clearing the bills. The
accountant’s signature was not found on the bills in the Measurement
Books along with the necessary endorsement. The committee suggested
that completed houses be allotted to the original eligible beneficiaries
under the PMAY scheme, houses which cannot be repaired be
demolished, and a new DPR under the PMAY scheme be prepared for
D
construction of houses.
23. It is urged that in the meeting held on 22.04.2019 (comprising
of the Collector Osmanabad, Chief Officer MHADA, Chief Officer
Municipal Council Naldurg and others) several actions were proposed,
such as technical valuation of the work done to ascertain if there were
E any financial irregularities; determining amount to be recovered from
the responsible person(s) and action to be taken against the person(s)
found responsible for irregularities; among others. In light of the report
dated 03.06.2019 from the technical team, the Collector Osmanabad
directed the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Naldurg, to recover the
F excess amount paid to the contractors, and blacklist them from
Government work, to initiate criminal prosecution against the person(s)
who had committed the irregularities, and lastly allot the repairable houses
as per PMAY. A compliance report was to be submitted. The Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad by his letter dated 11.06.2019 directed the
Collector to take steps for repairing houses which were in repairable
G condition to be allotted to the eligible beneficiaries under PMAY and to
demolish houses which are not in repairable condition. A new DPR plan
was to be prepared under PMAY scheme for construction of houses
and their allotment to eligible persons. Counsel submitted that these facts
are a matter of record, and cannot be disputed. In light of these materials,
H the authorities lodged the FIR, which led to initiation of criminal
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 827
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

proceedings. No doubt, it would appear that those proceedings were A
prompted by the judgment, and the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Yet, the question of quashing the FIR does not arise, because it is based
on allegations of serious illegalities, that cannot be overlooked.
Analysis and conclusions
24. The appellants who have approached this court, were all B
involved as persons or authorized individuals, acting on behalf of entities
that were awarded the contract of construction and completion of the
housing units, pursuant to the scheme, which was to be implemented
within 60 months. The spot inspection report dated 24.05.2019, alleges
that the appellants had not performed their task. In the case of the project C
consultant - who is one of the appellants - it was of not recording the
works done in the Measurement Book properly, and causing excess
payment to the contractors. PIL No. 70/2014 was filed against the project
contractor, officers and office bearers of Municipal Council. During the
pendency of that petition, criminal PIL No. 6/2018 was filed by the two
Municipal Councillors against the contractor, officers and office bearers. D
The High Court disposed of the two public interest litigations and directed
the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to take steps in the backdrop
of various reports submitted to him, as referred to in the Affidavit-in-
Reply dated 12.06.2019 filed by him.
25. The first grievance of the appellants is that the reasoning for E
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.
It is clear that the High Court’s order, against which an aggrieved litigant
has a right to approach this court, under special leave jurisdiction, should F
contain reasons, without which it would be well-nigh impossible to
exercise that right of seeking special leave, and in many cases, urged
ad-interim and, possibly, ex-parte relief. The appellants’ reliance on
Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr (supra), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
(supra) and Sudipta Chakrobarty (supra) and the other two judgments,
cited earlier, is warranted. In this case, the High Court incontestably G
should have furnished the reasons for the operative portion of its order.
To that extent, the appellants’ grievance is justified. This court is however
reluctant to hold – having regard to the circumstances and the facts on
the record - that the absence of reasons struck at the legitimacy of the
impugned judgment. It caused prejudice no doubt, to the extent that the H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A appellants were unable to furnish grounds on which their special leave
petitions were based. However, that prejudice stood off-set with the
interim orders of this court, which recognized the piquancy of the
situation, and directed stay of further action against the appellants. In
view of these special circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the
impugned order should not be set aside. However, the High Court’s
B
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) is strongly deprecated.
26. The appellant’s next challenge to the impugned judgment is
the ground that the public interest litigation was motivated, and that they
C were not parties. It is urged that consequently the High Court should not
have issued the impugned directions. Reliance is placed on decisions of
this court, to the effect that so called public interest litigations, motivated
by malice and personal ill will, should not be entertained.
27. There is no doubt, that public interest litigation is meant to be
D 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. This court had (undoubtedly before the era of
public interest litigation) emphasized the need to keep out “busybodies”
who “have no interest in matters of public interest” in Jasbhai Desai
E v. Roshan Kumar9 and stated, about such individuals, that
“They masquerade as crusaders for 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. They
indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process
F either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they
are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity;
while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category,
may be no more than spooking the wheels of administration.
The High Court should do well to reject the applications of
such busybodies at the threshold.”
G
28. In Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation v
Union of India & Ors.10 this court had underlined the purpose of public
interest proceedings, and observed as follows:

9
(1976) 3 SCR 58
H 10
(2017) 16 SCC 780.
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 829
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

“29. Why are the Action Plan and these directions necessary? A
We seem to be forgetting the power of Public Interest Litigation
and therefore need to remind ourselves, from time to time, of
its efficacy in providing social justice. Many years ago, this
Court noted in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union
of India (1982) 3 SCC 235 that :(SCC p. 240, para 2):
B
“2...Public interest litigation is brought before the court not
for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against
another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is
intended to promote and vindicate public interest which
demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of
large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a C
socially or economically disadvantaged position should not
go unnoticed and unredressed. That would be destructive of
the rule of law which forms one of the essential elements of
public interest in any democratic form of Government.”
A little later in the judgment, it was said: (SCC pp.242-43, D
para 3)
“3....Millions of persons belonging to the deprived and
vulnerable sections of humanity are looking to the courts for
improving their life conditions and making basic human rights
meaningful for them. They have been crying for justice but E
their cries have so far been in the wilderness. They have been
suffering injustice silently with the patience of a rock, without
the strength even to shed any tears.”
30. The advantage of public interest litigation is not only to
empower the economically weaker sections of society but also F
to empower those suffering from social disabilities that may
not necessarily of their making. The widows of Vrindavan
(and indeed in other ashrams) quite clearly fall in this category
of a socially disadvantaged class of our society.
31. Placing empowerment in perspective, this Court noted in G
State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC
402 that (at SCC p. 427, para 43) the first phase of public
interest litigation concerned itself with primarily with the
protection of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of “the marginalized groups and sections of the
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and
ignorance cannot approach this Court or the High Courts.”
We may add - the socially underprivileged groups. These are
the people who have no real access to justice and in that
sense are voiceless, and these are the people who need to be
empowered and whose cause needs to be championed by those
B
who advocate social justice for the disadvantaged.
32. This recognition formed the basis of the decision of this
Court in Delhi Jal Board v National Campaign for Dignity &
Rights of Sewerage & Allied Workers (2011) 8 SCC 568
wherein providing succour to the deprived sections of society
C was recognized as a “constitutional duty” of this Court.
Referring to several judgments delivered by this Court, it was
observed: (SCC p. 590, para 31)
“31. These judgments are a complete answer to the appellant’s
objection to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by
D Respondent 1.What the High Court has done by entertaining
the writ petition and issuing directions for protection of the
persons employed to do work relating to sewage operations
is part of its obligation to do justice to the disadvantaged
and poor sections of the society. We may add that the superior
E courts will be failing in their constitutional duty if they decline
to entertain petitions filed by genuine social groups, NGOs
and social workers for espousing the cause of those who are
deprived of the basic rights available to every human being,
what to say of fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution. It is the duty of the judicial constituent of the
F State like its political and executive constituents to protect
the rights of every citizen and every individual and ensure
that everyone is able to live with dignity.”
29. In the present case, the appellants urge this court to interfere
with the impugned judgment on the ground that the writ petitioners who
G approached the High Court/at whose behest the public interest
proceedings were initiated, and the impugned directions issued, had
personal motive. It was urged that the said writ petitioners were councillors,
and politically motivated. In the opinion of this court, that fact is insufficient
to allow the appeals. The cause espoused by the said individuals was
H undoubtedly one of public interest, because it concerned housing for the
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 831
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

economically disadvantaged sections of society, in such great numbers. A
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, there could have been no manner of
doubt that the initiation of public interest proceedings, were justified,
B
having regard to the contents of such reports. In the present case, 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.
30. The record thus discloses that two PILs had been filed C
containing somewhat similar allegations, i.e. the failure and neglect on
the part of the municipal authorities of Naldurg in regard to completion
of the scheme. The public interest litigants had alleged the utter
mismanagement of IHSDP in terms of which as many as 1.05 lakh
dwelling units were to be constructed and handed over to the eligible D
individuals. As noted previously, 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. The cost of construction was estimated
to be `16,08,91,396/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Eight Lakhs Ninety One E
Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six only). The total cost was
`20,69,04,514/- (Rupees Twenty Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs Four Thousand
Five Hundred Fourteen only). Eventually, the material in the form of
inspection reports and affidavits of MHADA as well as the Divisional
Commissioner revealed that only 302 housing units were constructed in F
different localities in Naldurg, of which 202 could be used and 100 were
in an unusable and dilapidated condition. The proceedings before the
High Court led to the inspection as well as the verification of accounts
as a consequence of which the affidavits filed on behalf of the authorities
revealed that excess payments of `1,52,81,846/- (Rupees One Crore
Fifty Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Six only) G
and `90,97,771/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven
Hundred Seventy One only) were made.
31. The main arguments of the appellants are that criminal
proceedings have been initiated against them even though they were not
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A heard in the public interest proceedings, and that being adverse to them
the judgment is vitiated on account of their non-participation. A grievance
is also made out that of the dwelling units constructed by the contractors,
no deficiency was pointed out by the public agency, i.e. the municipality
and that even civil action stood precluded because the contractual liability
period had lapsed.
B
32. The impugned judgment disposed of both the PILs. Essentially,
the first direction issued by the High Court, i.e. to the Divisional
Commissioner to take steps referred to in affidavit in reply in general
and para 8 in particular “to its logical end as expeditiously as possible”
appears to be the rub in this case inasmuch as the appellants grouse is
C that it has led to lodging of an FIR. The affidavit recounted the objections
of the IHSDP scheme and indicated the state of affairs with respect to
the completed dwelling units, i.e. 302 houses. The affidavit cited the
report dated 20.04.2019 and the steps recommended in the meeting of
the Committee on 22.04.2019. The Divisional Commissioner further stated
D as follows:
“7. I say and submit that after the receipt of the report from
the technical committee constituted by the deponent, the
Collector Osmanabad has submitted her report dated 03/06/
2019, wherein she stated that direction has been issued to the
E Chief Officer of the Municipal Council Naldurg by her letter
dated 03/06/2019.
I) To recover the excess amount paid to the contractors
from the concern contractors and further directed to
black list that contractors for Govt. work.
F II) Further directions has been issued to the Chief Officer
Municipal Council Naldurg, to initiate action of criminal
prosecution against the persons who have committed
the irregularities.
III) Further direction has been issued to the effect that the
G houses which are in repairable condition shall be
allotted as per the procedure laid down under the PMAY
and the report of the compliance shall be submitted.
The copy of the report dated 03/06/2019 submitted by
the Collector Osmanabad is annexed herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT “R-5”.
H
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 833
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

8. I say and submit that in the light of above facts and A
circumstances the deponent vide its letter dated 11/06/2019
directed the Collector Osmanabad to take steps for repairing
the houses which are in repairable condition and same should
be allotted to the eligible persons under PMAY scheme. That
houses which are not in repairable condition, by demolishing
B
the same new DPR plan should be prepared under the PMAY
scheme and the said houses should be allotted to the eligible
person under the said scheme. Further directions has also
been issued for lodging criminal prosecution against the
persons responsible for the irregularities in implementation
of the scheme. The copy of the letter dated 11/06/2019 is C
annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT “R-6”. Hence this
affidavit.”
33. It is quite evident that the High Court did not by itself direct
initiation of investigation nor did it direct registration of an FIR. The
Divisional Commissioner had deposed those instructions had been given D
to take such steps. The High Court, therefore, ordered that those steps
be taken to their logical end.
34. In the opinion of the court, whilst the reasoning for the impugned
judgment was undoubtedly published after a long and unexplained delay,
the effect of its operative directions were not to per se prosecute. It E
merely required the Divisional Commissioner to take the necessary steps,
which were not limited to the launching of criminal prosecution but also
taking steps towards reconstruction of the flats for the intended
beneficiaries. It is further a matter of record that when the FIR was
lodged in December 2019, all the present appellants – all of whom were
not before the High Court - were named as accused. Another important F
fact which requires to be noticed is that several of these appellants had
approached this Court on the ground that their applications for anticipatory
bail had been rejected; they filed special leave petitions along with
applications to file for special leave since they were not parties in the
High Court. Those proceedings were entertained and this court had G
granted interim orders protecting them from coercive action.
35. The material on record before the High Court in the form of
inspection report dated 20.04.2019 and further materials including the
Divisional Commissioner’s affidavit, showed irregularities of a severe
nature. The constructions, according to the reports, were sub-standard H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A – in respect of 100 such houses, so severe that the units were unusable.
The main objective of providing housing to 1206 eligible and deserving
families remains unfulfilled despite expenditure of substantial amounts.
In the circumstances, the argument of the appellants that they ought to
have been heard even before action was initiated, does not commend to
this Court; it is not sound. The five Judge Bench decision of this court in
B
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP11 is clear in that if there are allegations
with respect to commission of cognizable offences, brought to the notice
of the police authorities, ordinarily an FIR has to be lodged. The Court
held that:
“119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding
C registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that
the information given to the police must disclose the commission
of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of
an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is
made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be
D registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a
sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited
purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence
has been committed. But, if the information given clearly
mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no
other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other
E considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of
FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether
the information is genuine, whether the information is credible,
etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the
investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR,
F what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex
facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If,
after investigation, the information given is found to be false,
there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for
filing a false FIR.”
G 36. In the present case, there were materials suggesting serious
irregularities. The government allowed the Divisional Commissioner to
affirm in the affidavit filed by him on 12.06.2019 that criminal proceedings
would be initiated. In such circumstances, the observations of the High
Court to take the matter to the logical end have to be, therefore, construed

H 11
(2014) 2 SCC 1
SHAIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN v. THE STATE OF 835
MAHARASHTRA [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

in that context. Whether the allegations are true or whether the A
submissions on behalf of the petitioners justified their conduct or omission
is something upon which the High Court could not, and in the opinion of
this court correctly, did not comment. As far as the FIR itself was
concerned, the police had no choice given the imperative nature of the
law declared in Lalita Kumari (supra) where a preliminary enquiry
B
ordinarily is to be eschewed whenever cognizable offences are reported.
37. In light of the above findings, this court is of the opinion that
the appeals have to fail. However, it is made clear that the observations
made by the High Court or the observations of this court, in the course
of this judgment shall not be construed as precluding any argument or
defences, the merits of any argument or defence that may be taken by C
the appellants in the course of the criminal proceedings. The appeals are
accordingly dismissed but without any order on costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.
D

E

F

G

H