RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 742

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA

Case summary

RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

RAJJV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AUGUST 21. 2006. [K. G. BALAKRISHNAN. DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S. H. KAPADIA,JJ. ] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32 and 235-Writ of mandamus-Case under provisions of Prevention ofCorruption Act for acquiring disproportionate assets pending against twoformer Chief Ministers-Cases arising out ofFodder Scam pending before Special Judge-Revenue not filing appeals in income tax cases decided by ITAT in favour ofthe two Chief Ministers-Writ petition as public interest litigation by two MPs alleging the said two former Chief Ministers using their power and influence in transfer of Member. !

TAT earlier hearing their appeals-Transfer of Prosecutor in Prevention of Corruption Act case- Transfer ofSpecial Judge and appointment of another officer in his place- Prayers for direction to Revenue to file appeals against decision of ITAT- Direction to High Court to re-consider appointment ofSpecial Judge-To reappoint the same prosecutor-Trial pending before Special Judge to be monitored by Supreme Court and to cancel bail of the two former Chief Ministers-Held, Per Majority (Kapadia, J dissenting), the prayers sought for in the writ petitions cannot be allowed and the writ petitions being without merits are liable to be dismissed-Public Interest Litigation- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986-ss. 13(/)(e) and 13(2)-fncome Tax Act-s. 260-A. A large scale defalcation of public funds of crores of rupees in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Bihar came to light during the tenure or respondent No. 5 as Chief Minister of Bihar.

The petitioners, who were Members of the Parliament, filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court. Another writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court. Consequently, several cases were registered by the police and the investigation was ... entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Supreme Court directed that the investigation would be monitored by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The State Government was asked to assign adequate number of RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. O. l. 743 Special Judges to deal with the cases expeditiously. Later a case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against respondent No. 5, on the allegations that he, as Chief Minister of Bihar, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Respondent No. 4, the wife of respondent No. 5, who also became Chief Minister of Bihar later, was also charge-sheeted in the said case for abetment u/s 109 IPC read with ss.

13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was numbered as Special Case No. 5/1998 and was pending in the Court of Special Judge, Patna. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions as public interest litigation alleging that certain income tax appeals of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; the Member who was hearing the appeals was sent on deputation; the Bench comprising new Member decided the case in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the Revenue did not file any further appeal in those matters; that when the Special Case no. 5/1998 pending before the Special Judge was at the final stage of hearing, the Prosecutor was changed and another person who had no experience of conducting prosecution was appointed; that the Special Judge, CBI who was hearing the fodder scam matters, was transferred and another Special Judge was nominated, who was having a poor record and was not senior to be appointed as a Special Judge.

It was submitted that respondents no. 4 and 5 still wield influence and power and, therefore, the Supreme Court should monitor the trial pending before the Special Judge, Patna; and the bail granted to them should be cancelled. It was contended for respondent nos. 4 and 5 that filing of the writ prtitions was a politically motivated move to malign them~ It was submitted that both the petitioners were not in any way connected with case No, 5/1998 p filed against respondent nos. 4 and 5; it was a criminal litigation exclusively between respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the State, and in a case of this nature, nobody else got any right to interfere specially by way of public interest litigation. It was a! so submitted that the trial could not be conducted because of the present public interest litigation. Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: (Per Balakrishnan, J) I. I. The allegations made by the petitioners that there were serious ir".

'egularities in disposing of the income tax appeals of respondent nos. 4 and 5 are not factually correct. The very foundation of the allegation is that the then Member of the Appellate Tribunal was transferred from Patna to Delhi at a time when he was hearing appeals is factually incorrect. It is also not correct to say that appeals were disposed of by such a Member of the Tribunal who was on the verge of retirement. The petitioners could not point out any procedural irregularity in the manner in which the appeals were disposed of. A perusal of the affidavits, reports and various other papers shows that the allegations made by the petitioners are not true. 1756-D-FI 1. 2. As regards the petitioners' prayer that this Court should direct the authorities to file appeal against the orders passed by ITAT in the cases of respondent nos.

4 and 5, suffice it to say that an appeal is a statutory remedy available to the Department; and a third party, like the writ petitioners, cannot, in a collateral proceedings like this, seek any remedy of writ of mandamus directing the authorities to file appeals against the orders oflTAT. (756-F-GJ 1. 3. Moreover, the petitioners could not point out anythmg to show that there were serious procedural irregularities on the part of the Department in not filing the appeal. The Department had taken opinion of the Central Board of Direct Taxes as well as the Ministry of Finance and the latter had in turn sought the opinion of the Ministry of Law to the effect that no substantial question of law arose out of the judgments of the ITAT in the cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 for filing appeals before the High Court and thus instructions were issued not to file any appeal. The petitioners have not made any specific allegation that the decisions were taken at the behest of respondent nos.

4 and 5 or any undue influence was exerted to take such decisions. The allegations ir. ade by the petitioners are vague and indefinite. Therefore, the prayer for Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to file appeal against the ITAT orders cannot be allowed and is rejected. (756-C-D; G-H; 757-A-B) 2. 1. Regarding the plea that the public prosecutor who was conducting the case no. 5/98 against respondent nos. 4 and 5 was removed by the Director ofthe CBI presumably under pressure from the accused, it may be seen that from the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the said prosecutor had completed the case and examined all the witnesses for the prosecution as well as for the defence and he had also submitted his entire arguments to the Special Judge. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the prosecutor was purposely changed to give benefit to respondent nos. 4 and 5 is not correct. There is no allegation to prove that respondent nos.

4 and 5 had in any way interfered with the appointment ofthe Public Prosecutor. RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. 745 The petitioners could not produce any documents to show that the allegations . made in the original petitions were true. [759-D-E; 760-B-D[ 2. 2. In the instant case, the petitioners have approached this court by filing this public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution at the time when the recording of prosecution evidence in case No. 5/1998 was almost over and the trial of the case had reached the final stage. Ifat all, the petitioners had any grievance regarding the removal of the public prosecutor, they should have approached the Special Judge or the High Court. It is already noticed that the petitioners had no direct connection with this case. They were absolutely strangers as regards the criminal cases against respondent nos. 4 and 5 which were pending before the Special Judge.

This unnecessary interference in the criminal case may cause, some. times, damage to the prosecution case and at times may cause serious prejudice to the accused also. In any view of the matter, this sort of interference in the criminal prosecution would only deny a fair trial to the accused. (761-F-H; 762-A) Janata Dal v. ll. S. Chowdhary and Ors. , [1992) 4 SCC 305, relied on. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State ofW. B. , (2004) 3 SCC 349 and Union of India and Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi and Ors. , (1998) 8 SCC 661, referred to. 3. 1. So far as the allegation of the petitioners that the Special Judge who presently is dealing with the CBI cases at Patna was not properly appointed by the High Court and another Judge who was eai"lier dealing with this case was suddenly transferred to help respondent nos. 4 and 5, it may be noticed, at the outset, that no such allegations have been made in the original writ petition. The petitioners filed IA as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition nos.

6589-6590 of 2005 wherein certain allegations have been made. Subsequent to filing of these interim petitions, the original writ petition was not amended and no prayer was incorporated in the relief portion as to whether the present Special Judge is to be removed or not. [757-B-D) 3. 2. The appointment of the Officer is not challenged by the petitioners · nor any pleadings made in the main writ petition. By filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the petitioners have made series of allegations which are not borne out by any records. If at all, the petitioners had any grievance regarding the appointment of any particular Officer, the proper remedy was to approach the High Court and to bring the fact to the notice of the Chief Justice.

Since there is no material on record to shllW that there was any illegality or serious infraction ofany procedure in the appointment of the present Special Judge and the appointment as such cannot be challenged in a collateral proceedings and this Court cannot go into the question of appointment of a Special Judge which is exclusively within the domain of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution, the oral appeal of the petitioners for the change of the Presiding Officer of the Special Court cannot be granted. (759-A-CI 4. As regards the prayer of the petitioners that the bail granted to respondent nos. 4 and 5 is liable to be set aside, it may be mentioned that the petitioners could not prove anything that these respondents have interfered in the course of justice and they misused the privilege of bail extended to them. The petitioners have also no case that they are likely to flee from justice. The petitioners have not made out any case for cancellation of their bail.

The prayers sought for in the Writ Petitions cannot be allowed and the writ petition being without any merits is dismissed. (762-E-F( 0 PER DR LAKSHMANAN,J (CONCURRING): 1. 1. As regards transfer of the earlier Member of the ITAT, dealing with the appeals of respondents no. 4 and 5, the record shows that the President, ITAT acceded to his request on compassionate grounds to remain in Delhi, and it was not correct to say that he was shunted out of Patna. There is not an iota of truth in the allegation and all the averments made in the writ petitions are completely base:ess. It is seen from the report submitted by the President, ITAT on 9. 3. 2005 in this regard that the earlier Member ITAT had left India without obtaining permission as required under the rules and he was accordingly issued a show cause notice to explain about the acts ofindiscipline. Insofar as appointment ofthe Member in his place is concerned, the President has explained the position with regard to forming the Bench.

(768-B; G-H; 769-A-BJ 1. 2. The prayer of the petitioner to direct the Government of India to file appeals in the income-tax matters cannot at all be countenanced. The record discloses that the mat~er was fully considered and legal opinion was sought by BCIT investigation, Patna and that the opinion of the ASG was received stating that there was no substantial question of law for filing an appeal and that the consideration of this aspect had been done properly and independently and there have been no extraneous considerations. The Government of India has taken into consideration the views ofthe Ministry of Law and Ministry of Finance to the effect that no substantial questions of law RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. 747 arise out of the judgments of the ITAT in the cases of respondent Nos. 4 and S for filing appeals before the High Court and instructions were issued that appeals would not be filed in respect of those cases. (773-D; 774-A-B; E, F) 2.

The appointment of lawyers/Prosecutors is the prerogative of the Government in power and the prosecuting agency, and court has no role to play. The petitioners are trying to find fault with every attempt and with every step taken. In cases like this the delay is inevitable. [773-B-C) 3. 1. As regards the prayer of petitioners regarding appointment of the Presiding Judge, Special Court, Patna, the records have been submitted by the High Court in regard to the officers concerned including the present incumbent. There is absolutely no adverse entry against him and that poor record if any is not the record of integrity and that no gradation has been given to officers after 1997 onwards including the officer concerned. The relevant service records of the officers concerned including the present incumbent was placed before the Stanaing Committee which took into consideration the fact that no allegation petition has been received against him.

It was resolved that the officer be posted as Special Judge, CBI Fodder scam cases at Patna. The said resolution was placed before the Full Court which also approved the same. (771-E-F; 772-F-G) 3. 2. The Standing Committee has taken a decision to appoint the officer as Special Judge after scrutinizing the records, ACRs etc. in accordance with Articles 233 and 235 of the Constitution of India which is the prerogative right of the Standing Committee and the High Court, and when a decision is taken it is not for this Court to scrutinize the correctness of the decision that too at the instance of third parties. (773-C-D) 4. In regard to the prayer for cancellation of the bail at the instance of the petitioners, the said request cannot at all be countenanced. The various . documents and annexures etc. filed in the writ petition indicate that respondent ' Nos. 4 and Shave never interfered with the conduct of trial or with the IT .. f proceedings.

It cannot be said that the delay is solely attributable to respondent Nos. 4 and S. The delay is attributable to both the prosecution and the defence and also to the Court. Therefore, respondent Nos. 4 and S cannot be held responsible for the delay. Besides, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail when it is not proved that any of the bail conditions has been violated. [770-B; E-G) S. Monitoring of pending trial is subversion ofcriminal law as it stands to mean that the Court behind the back of the accused is entering into a dialogue with the investigating agency. Therefore, there can be no monitoring, after the charge sheet is filed. 1768-A) Union ofIndia and Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi and Ors. , (1998) 8 SCC 661, relied on. 6. Public interest litigation is meant for the benefit of the lost and lonely and those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access to the Court.

PILs are not meant to advance the political gain and also settle their scores under the guise of a public interest litigation and to fight a legal battle. The liberty of an accused cannot be taken away except in accordance with the established procedure oflaw under the Constitution, criminal procedure and other cognate statutes. PIL is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings. (744-G-H; 775-A-B) TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad {98) v. Union ofIndia and Ors. , (2006) 5 SCC 28; Janata Dal v. H. S. Chaudhary and Ors. , (1992) 4SCC 305; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.. (2005) l SCC 590; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State ofWB. , (2004) 3 SCC 349. and S. P. Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. , 11981) Supp SCC 87, referred to. 7. The records placed before the Court would only go to show that respondent No.

4 had no hand in any of these matters whether in the appointment of judges or in the change of the prosecutor or on the decision not to file an appeal in the income tax cases. (775-BJ PER KAPADIA, J ( Dissenting) 1. 1. True value of a decision lies in its propriety and not in the decision being right or wrong. In the instant case, the Court is concerned not with the merits of the allegations but with the decision-making process, be it in the posting ofthe present incumbent as Special Judge, CBI, Patna or in the matter of the Revenue Department not moving in appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite there being substantial questions of law arising from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. (782-G-H; 794-C( t. 2. It has to be ascertained in the present case whether the decision of the Government in not preferring any appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the l. T. Act constituted inaction on the part of the Revenue Department.

This question needs to be answered not in an abstract but having regard to position in law and having regard to the facts of the present case. 1785-C-DI Inland Revenue Commissioners v. National Federation ofSeif-employed RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. 749 and Small Business Ltd, (1982) Appeal Cases 617, referred to. 1. 3. While allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the case involved highly intricate issues involving interpretation of sections 131, 13l(IA), 273-A and 174/148 of the Income Tax Act; that, these issues were extremely difficult to understand; that, but for the assistance of the advocates on both sides it was difficult to adjudicate such disputes. f\. t the same time the Tribunal without any basis castigated the officers of the Department including the Commissioner (Appeals) saying that rampant additions were made to destroy the case of the assessees and to destroy the political career of respondent no. 5.

Similarly, the Tribunal has castigated the higher officers ofthe Department saying that they were biased and that they had acted at the behest of the Centre in clubbing the income of respondent no. 4 with that of respondent no. 5 who was going through political crisis. This Court has noticed in number of cases that even an innocuous statement of the tribunal against the Revenue Officers is challenged before the higher courts on the ground that such observations are aspersions against the officers who have performed their duty and that they need to be expunged. Surprisingly, in this particular case till today no such appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the l. T. Act. (787-B-D; 788-C-D) 1. 4. There is no basis given in the impugned decision of the Tribunal for making such strong observations against the officers of the Revenue. Although the High Court under Section 260A of the l. T.

Act would not have enquired into the sufficiency of materials or substituted its judgment for that of the Tribunal in regard to facts, nevertheless, if the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is without any basis or based on irrelevant considerations then the High Court was required to interfere under Section 260A. (787-D-E) 1. 5. Besides, the judgment of the jurisdictional tribunal on the scope and interpretation of the above sections which the Tribunal itself says involve complex legal issues, is binding on assessing officers and the appellate authority within that jurisdiction. If so, one fails to understand why the Department has not moved in appeal under Section 260A of the I. T. Act. In the circumstances of this case, Union of India should apply its mind afresh and take its decision keeping in mind the factors referred to herei~~~~~~~) 7 2. It is true that PIL is not maintainable to probe or enquire into the returns of another taxpayer except in special circumstances.

However, when scams take place, accusations of disproportionate assets are required to be looked into. The source of the funds plays a crucial role in investigations by CBI in matters involving misappropriation of public funds. Departments have to work in tandem. The evidentiary value of the collected material in the criminal trial is a matter different from the collection of information by the officers of the Rev1! nue Department. The present petitions are filed on the alleged acts of misfeasance. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioner's interest. Under this test it is necessary to consider the subject matter to which the PIL relates. It is wrong in law for the court to judge the applicant's interest without looking at the subject matter of his complaint. If the petitioner shows failure of public duty, the court would be in error in dismissing his PIL. (783-8-C; 787-F; 788-A) Jmwa Dal v. H. S. Chaudhary and Ors.

, 1199214 SCC 305; A. R. Antulay v. Ramadas Sriniwas Nayak and Anr. , (19841 2 SCC 500; Union ofIndia v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi and Ors. , 119981 8 SCC 661; M. C Mehta v. Union of India and Others (Taj Trapezium Matter), 120031 8 SCC 696; T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (Y8) v. Union ofIndia and Ors. , 1200615 SCC 28; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 120051 l SCC 590; State ofBihar and Anr. v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party and Anr. , 11996) 3 SCC 682 and Gurpal Singh v. State ofPunjab and Ors.. 12005) 5 SCC 136, referred to. 3. 1. The procedure adopted at the time of posting the present incumbent as Special Judge, CBI, Patna (Fodder Scam Cases), needs to be relooked by the Patna High Court. Institutional autonomy of the High Court on its administrative side under Article 233 and Article 235 is a well-known concept. It is based on public trust and confidence. Existence of the power, as a concept, is different from exercise of power.

Promotions and posting of judicial officers fall within its domain or. its administrative side. At the same time it is important to note that choice of the candidate falls in the domain of public law and, therefore, that choice has to be exercised on some standard, failing which judicial review steps in. It is important to bear in mind that in the matter of economic scams, it is the economic interest of the country which is at stake. These cases are highly complicated in which complicated questions are involved and, therefore, posting plays a vical role. 1788-H; 789-A-B; 793-E) 3. 2 It is clear that while remarks of Inspecting Judge in the case of other officers were duly updated when they were placed before the Committee of the High Court,there is no gradation/categorisation of the confidential reports of the present incumbent by the Inspecting Judge of the High Court particularly after he became A. D. J. [791-F-H; 792-AI RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. [BALAKRISHNAN, J.

] 751 3. 3. It seems that the procedure followed by the High Court in the meeting on 22. 06. 0S has lost sight of the above criteria. In the circumstances, a request is being made to the ChiefJustice ofthe Patna High Court to convene an urgent meeting of Administrative Judges and complete the exercise of giving appropriate gradation/categorization after looking at the judgments and orders delivered by the concerned judge, and to have a fresh look at the evaluation in the case of posting of the Officer concerned as Special Judge for C. B. I. (Fodder Scam Cases) at Patna, vide Minutes of Meeting dated 22. 06. 2005. It is made clear that this is just a request to the High Court and not a direction so that the evaluation standards·are commonly applied to all the three candidates. (793-F-Gf CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 197-198 of2004. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

) Mukul Rohatgi, Kailash Vasudev, Gopal Singh and Saurarb Kirpal for the Appellants. G. E. Vahanvati, S. G. Mohan Parasaran, A. S. G. , Ram Jethmalani, P. H. Parekh, E. R. Kumar, Shakun Sharma, P. R. Mala, Michale Peter, Chitranjan (for P. H. Parekh & Co. ), B. V. Balaram Das, Sandhya Goswami, Hrishikesh Baruah, Devdatt Kamat, Chinmoy Sharma, and Suruchi Suri for (P. Parmeswaran) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. These writ petitions are filed as Public Interest Litigation by the two petitioners herein who were Members of the Parliament at the time of filing the petitions. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 were formerly Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar.

It is alleged by the petitioners that they filed writ petitions· before the High Court of Patna alleging largescale defalcation of public funds and falsification of accounts involving hundreds of crores of rupees in the Department of Animal Husbandary in the State of Bihar and pursuant to these allegations, several cases were registered by the Police and investigation of these cases was later handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. In an earlier petition filed before this Court on 19. 3. 1996, this Court directed that the investigation shall be monitored by the Division Bench ofthe Patna High Court anq in that Order, it was indicated that the CBI Officers entrusted with the investigation shall inform the Chief 752 SUPREME COURT REPORrs [2006) SUPP. 4 S. C. R.

Justice of Patna High Court from time to time of the progress made in the investigation and if they needed any directions in the matter of conducting the investigation, obtain them from him and it was also said that the learned Chief Justice may either post the matter for directions before a Bench presided over by him or constitute any other appropriate Bench. It was also directed that the State Government shall co-operate in assigning adequate number of Special judges to deal with the cases expeditiously so that no evidence may be lost. The petitioners allege that consequent upon change of the Government in the Centre, attempts have been made to delay and interfere with the judicial process. It is alleged that the public prosecutors who were handling the cases were removed and to protect the interests of respondent nos. 4 and 5, convenient prosecutor was appointed. The respondent no. 5 is an accused in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case is filed pursuant to the FIR registered as no. R. C. 5[A] 498/AHD-Pat dated 19. 8. 1998. The allegation in that case is that respondent no. 5 as Chief Minister of Bihar between 1990 to 1996 had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Chargesheet was filed in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Patna on 4. 4. 2000 under Section 13(I)(e) ofthe Prevention ofthe Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent no. 4 also was charge sheeted in the same case for abetment under Section I09 of the IPC read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(I)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This case has been re-numbered as Special Case No. 5/1998 and is pending trial in the Court ofthe Special Judge, CBI, Patna. The petitioners allege that certain income tax cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and one Mr. D. K. Tyagi who was a member of the ITAT had been hearing those cases and that respondent nos.

4 and 5 found it difficult to pursue the hearings before the said ITAT member and hence at their influence Mr. Tyagi was sent on deputation and he was replaced by one Mr. Mohanaranjan who was on the verge of retirement. It is further alleged that the new member alongwith another member heard these cases within two weeks and orders were pronounced in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is also alleged that respondent no. 3, namely, the Central Board of Direct Taxes did not prefer appeal in these cases though the decision went against the revenue. This, according to the petitioners, was to help respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the cases filed against them based on the allegation that they acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. [BALAKRISHNAN, J. ] 753 The petitioners have also alleged that the Special Case No.

5/1998 pending before the Special Judge, CBI was at the final stage of hearing and that the Director, CBI, presumably under pressure from the accused changed the prosecutor and appointed one Shri Oma Shankar Singh who was only a retired Deputy Superintendent of Delhi Police and had no experience of conducting the prosecution. According to the prosecution, this was done at the fag end of the prosecution case to help the accused. The petitioners have made allegations against respondents I to 3 also that they were acting arbitrarily and interfering in the judicial process to benefit the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners have alleged that respondent nos. 4 and 5 obtained stay of proceedings of the case pending before the Special Judge from this Court suppressing some material facts. It is alleged that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 still wield influence and power and, therefore, this Court should monitor the trial ofthe case pending before the Special Judge, CBI, at Patna.

In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have prayed mainly four reliefs. TJle first relief prayed is to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction monitor;ng the conduct ofthe trials relating to fodder scam cases proceedings against respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the States of Bihar & State of Jharkhand. The second prayer is to appoint the very same prosecutor who had been conducting prosecution earlier and to direct the High Court to see that no prosecutor or CBI Officer attached with the investigation and trial of the case should be removed, harassed or victimized for discharging their duties. The petitioners have also prayed that at least one inspector be provided for each fodder case. The petitioners have also prayed for cancellation of bail granted to respondent nos. 4 and 5. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to file an appeal against the orders passed by the ! TAT.

During the pendency or" these Writ Petitions, the Counsel for the p petitioners alleged that the Special Judge who was trying the case involving respondent nos. 4 and 5, was being replaced by another Special Judge. The allegation was that one Shri Yogender Prasad was the CBI Special Judge and he was being replaced by one Shri Muni Lal Paswan and this according to the petitioners was deliberately done to help the respondent nos. 4 and 5. In view ofthe allegations made by the petitioners, this Court on 1. 8. 2005 directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to send details and files as to when Judge Shri Yogender Prasad was promoted as a District Judge and all papers regarding posting of the subsequent officer Shri Muni Lal Paswan. As regards the posting of Shri Muni Lal Paswan as a Special Judge, this Court again passed an Order on 26. 10. 2005 and the Registrar of the High Court was directed to give further clarification in the matter.

The Registrar General of the High Court of Patna appean:d in person before us and filed an affidavit giving out the details leading to the decision of the Standing Committee of the High Court to post Shri Muni Lal Paswan as a Special Judge, CBI case Patna. Jn view of the allegations made by the petitioners in respect of the cases pending before the ITAT, the President of the ITAT was directed to send all papers pertaining to the constitution of the Bench of Shri P. Mohanarajan and Shri M. K. Sarkar which disposed of the various appeals pending before the ITAT. The President of the ITAT has submitted a report and also produced relevant papers before us. In view of the allegation made by the petitioners regarding the appointment of a new prosecutor in place of earlier prosecutor, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to produce the entire files including the notations pertaining to the appointment of Shri Oma Shankar Shanna as Prosecutor.

Refuting the atlegations contained in the Writ Petition, detailed counteraffidavits have been filed by the respondents. In the joint counter-affidavit of respondent nos. 4 and 5, they have alleged that the writ petitions contain vague and indefinite allegations and they are made with political motive to satisfy their personal grudge and that this is an abuse of the process of the Court. The respondents have alleged that the Public Interest Litigation shall not be used for private or political motives or for other consideration. It is also alleged that Special Case no. 5/98 pending before the Special Judge is case registered under Sections 13(2) and 13(1) ofthe Prevention ofCorruption Act and it has nothing to do with the 'fodder scam' case. The various allegations made in the Writ Petitions have been denied specifically.

We heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri Mukul Rohtagi for the petitioner and Solicitor General appearing for respondents I to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5. At the time of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in the present facts and circumstances of the case only pray for appointment of an appropriate prosecutor to conduct the case pending before the Special Judge and that the bail of the respon'. ient nos. 4 and 5 be cancelled and Respondent no. 3 be directed to file appeals against the orders passed by the ITAT. The petitioners also submitted arguments to the effect that the appointment of the present Special Judge was not done properly. No specific prayer was made by the petitioners to change the Presiding Officer. They, however, submitted a request that High Court may be directed to reconsider the appointment and RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. [BALAKRISHNAN, J.

) 755 posting of Shri Muni Lal Paswan as a Special Judge. We shall first consider the prayer of the petitioners as to whether any irregularities have been committed in the matter of disposal of cases against respondent nos. 4 and 5 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna. The petitioners have alleged that Shri D. K. Tyagi, who had been hearing the cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and proving to be difficult during the course of the hearing, was curiously sent on deputation and was replaced by Shri Mohanarajan, who was on the verge of the retirement, to head the Tribunal. It is further alleged that Shri Mohanarajan picked up only two cases pertaining to respondent nos. 4 and 5 even though the matter had been heard fully by another bench, and within two weeks, the cases were heard and allowed in favour of the assessees namely respondent nos. 4 and 5, and that he had no backgrolmd of the case and had not disposed of any other matter.

The petitioners alleged that after the disposal of these cases by the Tribunal, steps were not taken to file appeal against these orders and that was done at the instance of respondent nos. 4 and 5. The entire allegations made by the petitioners are denied. The President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal submitted a report regarding the manner in which income tax cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were disposed of by the Tribunal. The President has stated that he took over as the President of ITAT on 31. 10. 2003 and at that time a petition filed by Respondent no. 5 for transfer of cases from Patna to Delhi was pending. The Department after considering the legal aspects declined to transfer the cases of respondent no. 5 to Delhi. It was suggested and noted on the files "it may perhaps be worthwhile to consider constituting a Special Bench for early disposal of these appeals". Shri D. K. Tyagi sent a representation on 12. 1.

2004 praying that he may be transferred to Delhi as his mother was 80 years old and with p deteriorating health and that he was anxious to arrange marriage of his daughter and his son was studying at Delhi. There were some other developments also as Shri D. K. Tyagi had left India without permission and a show-cause notice was issued to him. He filed an explanation and came over to Delhi to personally explain the things and he was allowed to remain at Delhi for some period and the President ofthe ITAT, with a view to inculcate judicial discipline, decorum and proper behaviour from the Bench, made Shri Tyagi to sit in Delhi Bench of the ITAT alongwith the seniormost Accountant Member. There were also other circumstances whereby Shri. Tyagi wanted his transfer from Patna to avoid recurrence of another incident in view of the repeated confrontations with the Bar. It was under these circumstances Shri Mohanarajan was directed to camp at Patna in June, 2004.

Another member Shri Aggarwal also expressed his inability to camp at Patna. Shri P. Mohanarajan alongwith Shri M. K. Sarkar who was a senior member of the Tribunal, dealt with the cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5. The President has also refuted an allegation that Shri Sarkar was selected to camp at Delhi only for a short period to dispose of this case. He has brought to our notice that the Bench disposed of 11 appeals of respondent no. 5 and several other cases and that 136 cases were disposed of during that period and the list of such cases and details are given at Annexure I. As regards non-filing of the appeals against the order passed by ITAT, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-VIIJ in New Delhi had filed affidavit wherein it is stated that the question was referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for consideration and he had sought opinion from the Ministry of Law.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Ministry of Finance obtained the opinion of the Ministry of Law to the effect that no substantial questions of law arose out of the judgments of the ITAT in the cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 for filing appeals before the High Court and thus instructions were issued not to appeal against these cases. The allegations made by the petitioners that there were serious irregularities in disposing of the cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5 are not factually correct. The very foundation of the allegation is that Shri Tyagi, member ofthe Appellate Tribunal was transferred from Patna to Delhi at a time when he was hearing appeals is factually incorrect. It is also not correct to say that appeals were disposed of by the member of the Tribunal who was on the verge of retirement. The petitioners could not point out any procedural irregularity in the manner in which these appeals were disposed of.

After going through the affidavits and reports and various other papers, we are satisfied that the allegations made by the petitioners are not true. The petitioners have prayed that this Court should direct the authorities to file J appeal against the orders passed by ITAT in the cases of respondent nos. 4 and 5. In a collateral proceedings like this, the petitioner cannot seek any remedy of Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to file appeals against such orders. An appeal is a statutory remedy available to the Department and the third party like Writ Petitioner cannot seek such remedies in collateral proceedings like this. Moreover, the petitioners could not point out anything to show that there were serious procedural irregularities on the part of the Department in not filing the appeal. The Department had taken opinion ofthe Central Board of Direct Taxes as well as the Ministry of Finance and the - RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. l. [BALAKRISHNAN, J.

] 757 Ministry of Finance had sought the opinion of the Ministry of Law. The petitioners have not made any specific allegation that these decisions were taken at-the behest of respondent nos. 4 and 5 or any undue influence was exerted to take such decisions. The allegations made by the petitioners are vague and indefinite. Therefore, the prayer for Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent nos. I to 3 to file an appeal against the ! TAT orders cannot be allowed and is liable to be rejected. The next prayer of the petitioners is that the Special Judge who is dealing with the CBI cases at Patna was not properly appointed by the High Court of Patna and another Judge who was dealing with this case was suddenly transferred to help respondent nos. 4 and 5. It may be noticed, at the outset, that no such allegations have been made in the original Writ Petition. The petitioners filed IA as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition nos. 6589- 6590 of 2005 wherein certain allegations have been made.

Subsequent to this filing of these interim petitions, the original writ petition was not amended and no prayer was incorporated in the relief portion as to whether the present Special Judge is to be removed or not. In the interlocutory application as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition nos. 6589-6590 of2005, the petitioners alleged that taking undue advantage of the ongoing summer vacations, in an attempt to over reach the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court which was already seized of the matter in its entirety, the Patna High Court on the administrative side, has directed the transfer of the Special Judge(AHD), Patna. Such act according to the petitioners amounts to contempt of this Hon 'ble Court and the petitioners reserved their right to initiate appropriate proceedings for contempt against the persons responsible for the same. The petitioners sought for stay of the transfer of the then Special Judge Shri Yogender Prasad. This Court on 1. 8.

2005 passed the following order: "At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitions are fixed for hearing on 20th September, 2005. Jn the meantime, the prosecution arguments may continue but thereafter the trial to remain stayed and defence argument not to start without further orders of this Court. The Registrar General of the Patna High Court to send the details and files when Judge Yogender Prasad was promoted as a District Judge and all papers regarding posting of the present incumbent Shri Muni Lal Paswan. " This Court declined to grant stay of transfer of Special Judge Shri Yogender Prasad as he was promoted to the post of Principal Sessions Judge. This Court also passed an Order on 26. 12. 2005 wherein the details regarding the appointment of the present incumbent Shri Muni Lal Paswan were sought from the High Court.

The entire records relating to the appointment of Shri Muni Lal Paswan as a special judge CBI, Patna have been produced in this case including the Confidential Registers of the various officers. On perusal ofthese records, we find that the Standing Committee of the High Court took a decision to post Shri Muni Lal Paswan as the CBI, Speci°lll Judge, Patna. Six senior most judges of the High Court of Patna constituted the Standing Committee of the High Court and the decision was taken in the meeting of the Committee held on 22nd June, 2005. The decision ofthe Standing Committee is recorded as follows:- "Having considered the relevant service records of the officers concerned as also taking into consideration the fact that no allegation petition has been received against Sri Muni Lal Paswan, Additional District Judge, Sahara. It is resolvedthat let him (Sri Muni Lal Paswan) be posted as Special Judge for C. B. I. (Fodder Scam Cases) at Patna.

It is further resolved upon consideration of the relevant service records of the officers concerned that Shri J. P. Ratnesh, Additional District Judge, Patna, be posted as Special Judge, C. B. I. (South Bihar) and Sri Ram Niwas Prasad, Additional District Judge, Patna, as Special Judge for Vigilance Case (Court No. I). In view of the urgency of the matter, the officer is directed to take necessary steps for issue of notification immediately. " Though the petitioners have not made any allegations in the Writ Petitions, at the time of argument, the learned Senior Counsel stated that Shri Muni Lal Paswan was having poor record and he was not senior to be appointed as a Special Judge. We have perused the Confidential Register of Shri Muni Lal Paswan which was made available to us. Of course, the Confidential Register of this Officer was available only upto 2003.

For some period, he was working on deputation and the inspecting judge had not recorded the confidential registers for that period, though the confidential registers of other officers were available to the Standing Committee. The Confidential Reports of Shri Muni Lal Paswan from 1981 to 2003 have been produced in Court. We have perused the Confidential Register of this Officer and it has been repeatedly recorded that this Officer has maintained honesty and integrity during the period under report. About his conduct and integrity, - RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. (BALAKRISHNAN, J. ] 759 nothing adverse is reported against him. Of course, in some of the years, this Officer has been graded as 'Category B' with regard to his judicial performance. These are all matters considered by the Standing Committee which consists of senior judges of the High Court. The appointment of this Officer is not . - challenged by the petitioners and no pleadings also made in the main Writ Petition.

By filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the petitioners have made series of allegations which are not borne out by any records. If at all, the petitioners had any grievance regarding the appointment of any particular Officer, the proper remedy was to approach the High Court and to bring this fact to the notice of the Chief Justice. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any material on record to show that there was any illegality or serious infraction of any procedure in the appointment of the present CBI (Special Judge), Patna and the appointment as such cannot be challenged in a collateral proceedings and this Court cannot go into the question of appointment of : a Special Judge which is exclusively within the domain of the High Court under Article 235 of. the Constitution. Therefore, the oral appeal of the petitioners for the change of the Officer of the Special Judge cannot be granted.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners also alleged that the public prosecutor who was conducting the case no. 5/98 against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 was removed by the Director of the CBI presumably under pressure from the accused and one Uma Shankar Singh was appointed and he was a Deputy Superintendent of Delhi Police and had commenced his law ' practice only recently. The petitioners alleged that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were unnecessarily interfering in the course of justice and managed to change the public prosecutor who was diligently discharging his duties. In the rejoinder atlidavit filed on behalf ofthe petitioners, the petitioners reiterated their allegation and stated that Shri L. R. Ansari who had been conducting the disproportionate assets case, had examined 225 witnesses, was sent elsewhere and some other public prosecutor was appointed. Refuting all these allegations, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 CBI.

In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that disproportionate assets case against respondent nos. 4 and 5 was being conducted by Shri L. R. Ansari, right from the beginning. He had examined 132 witnesses from the prosecution and the defence had also examined 93 witnesses. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners were completed on 14. 7. 2004 and the arguments on behalf of the defence started on 19. 7. 2004. and as the case was practically over, it was decided to avail Shri Ansari's service in other Animal Pusbandary cases. It . ,. ;.. is also stated that if found necessary, Mr. Ansari would be called to give any reply at the end of the case. As regards Shri Oma Shankar Sharma, it is submitted that he had started his practice as an Advocate on 23. 2. 1968 and he was appointed as a Prosecutor in 2. 1. 1973 in Delhi and conducted several cases before criminal courts in New Delhi. He was promoted as Senior-cum- Additional Public Prosecutor on 16. 10.

1992 and conducted several important cases including TADA cases. He was appointed as a Legal Adviser to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and continued upto 31. 8. 2003. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the earlier prosecutor Shri Ansari had completed the cases and examined all the witnesses for the prosecution as well as for the defence and he had also submitted his entire arguments to the Special Judge. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the prosecutoI" was purposely changed to give benefit to respondent nos. 4 and 5 is not correct. There is no allegation to prove that respondent nos. 4 and 5 had in any way interfered with the appointment of the Public Prosecutor. The petitioners could not produce any documents to show tt. at the allegations made in the original petitions were true. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the original petition is a politically motivated move to malign respondent nos.

4 and 5 and this sort of public interest litigation should not be entertained by the Court and placed reliance on the series of decisions passed by this Court. It may be noticed that the case nos. 5198 has been filed against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 alleging that they had amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income while holding the post of Chief Minister of the State of Bihar. Both the petitioners are not in any way connected with this case. They are not de-facto complainant in this case. It is for the prosecution to prove its case and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to deny that the allegations are not true and they did not have the disproportionate income as alleged by the prosecution. It is a criminal litigation exclusively between respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the State.

It is also important to note that in a case of this nature, nobody else has got any right to interfere especially by way of public interest litigation or else such public interest litigation would only hamper the course of justice and may cause prejudice to the accused by denying a fair trial. In this case, as early as 2004, 132 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 93 witnesses were examined on the defence side. Arguments of the prosecution were over as early as in 14. 7. 2004 and the defence arguments continued upto 19. 7. 2004. Because ofthe present public interest litigation, the trial could not be conducted. It is equally important to note that though the - RAJIV RANJAN SINGH LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. [BALAKRISHNAN, J. ] 761 petitioners have alleged series of irregularities, but they are not supported by basic facts having solid foundation. This Court in Janata Dal v. H. S. Chaudhary and Ors.

, [1992] 4 SCC 305 held that in a criminal case, a person who has no interest shall not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court by h1tervening in the proceedings and a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding alone has locus standi to file a public interest litigation and a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive, or any oblique consideration has no such right to file public interest litigation. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 relied on Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State ofW. B. , [2004] 3 SCC 349. That is a case where petition was filed under Article 32 ofthe Constitution purportedly in public interest but the prayer was to the effect that the death sentence imposed on one 'D' by the Sessions Court, affirmed by the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court, needed to be converted to a life sentence because there had been no execution of the death sentence for a long time.

Therein, this Court said that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding alone can initiate public interest litigation and that the court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. In Union ofIndia and Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi and Ors. , [1998] 8 sec 661, a three Judge bench of this Court held that once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court after completion of the investigation, the process of monitoring by the monitoring Court for the purpose ofmaking the CBI and other investigative agencies concerned perform their function of investigating into the offences concerned comes to an end; and thereafter it is only the court in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the instant case, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution at the time when the recording of the prosecution evidence was almost over and the trial of the case reached a final stage. If at all, the petitioners had any grievance regarding the removal of the public prosecutor, they should have submitted their grievance before the Special Judge or before the High Court. It is already noticed that the petitioners had no direct connection with this case. They were absolutely strangers as regards the criminal ;ases against respondent -· nos. 4 and 5 which was pending before the Special Judge. This unnecessary interference in the criminal case may cause, sometimes, damage to the prosecution case and at times may cause serious prejudice to the accused also. In any view of the matter, this sort of interference in the criminal prosecution would only deny a fair trial to the accused.

The petitioners in the writ petitions have prayed to re-engage the same prosecutor who was handling the case in the Trial Court from the very beginning of the trial. The earlier prosecutor had already been deployed to conduct some other case and we do not think that there is any necessity to give any direction to the CBI. However, the CBI would be at liberty to make use of the services of the earlier Prosecutor Shri Ansari. The second prayer of the petitioners that the present Special Judge is to be replaced by another Judicial Officer also cannot be granted as the appointment of the Judge has been validly made by the High Court. In the petition, there was no allegation agaimt the present Judicial Officer warranting his removal from the post. The petitioners prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. I to 3 to file appeal against the orders passed by the ITAT. The petitioners have not made out any case for issuing any such Writ of Mandamus. The respondent nos.

I to 3, after following the due procedure, have decided not to file an appeal against the order passed by ITAT and we do not find any reason to give any direction to file appeal. The last prayer of the petitioners is that the bail granted to respondent nos. 4 and 5 is liable to be set aside. The petitioners could not prove anything that these respondents have interfered in the course of justice and they misused the privilege of bail extended to them. The petitioners have also no case that they are likely to flee from justice. The petitioners have not made out any case for cancellation of their bail. The prayers sought for in the Writ Petitions cannot be allowed and the Writ Petitions being without any merits are liable to be and dismissed accordingly. All interim orders passed in the Writ Petitions are vacated. DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Ihad the privilege ofperusing the judgment proposed by my learned Brother - Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan.

While respectfully concurring with the conclusion arrived by the learned Judge, I would like to add the following few paragraphs:- The first petitioner is a Member of Parliament and the second petitioner is the Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar. The above writ petition, ostensibly in ... ~ RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. (LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 76-' public interest, has been filed by them for the following relief: a. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction monitoring the conduct of the trials relating to the fodder scam case proceeding against respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the State of Bihar & State ofJharkhand; b.

issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Director, CBI to reinstate the prosecutors who were handling the cases in the Trial Court and the High Court and directing that no prosecutor or any CBI officer attached with the investigation and the trial of these scam cases should be removed, harassed or victimized for discharging their duties, without specific orders from this Hon 'hie Court; c. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Director, CBI to provide the logistics and ensure that it is represented by at least one Inspector in each of the 7 courts by Special Judge, CBI in the State of Jharkhand which is trying the fodder scam cases so that no adjournments are sought and granted; d. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction canceling the bail granted to respondent nos. 4 and 5 e. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no.

I and/or 3 to file an appeal against the order passed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal" On our direction, the Registrar General of the Patna High Court was present in Court on 26. 07. 2006. He filed an affidavit and also explained the procedure followed in the appointment of Shri Munni Lal Paswan as a special Judge to try the disproportionate assets cases with reference to the records. We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kailas Vasudev learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. H. Parekh and Mr. G. E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General and Mr. Mohan Parasan, learned ASG for the respondents. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned senior counsel made elaborate submissions on the question of maintainability of the writ petitions and also submitted that Mr. Munni Lal Paswan was promoted recently and posted at Patna for disposing off the case filed against respondent Nos.

4 and 5 and that the said Munni Lal Paswan is not a desirable person to be posted in the said post to conduct the case. He also requested that the Public Prosecutors who were proving to be inconvenient to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are being supplanted with chosen ones. Like that, Member (Judicial) in the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal-Mr. R. K. Tyagi who had been hearing the appeal of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was curiously sent on deputation and was replaced by Mr. Mohanarajan, a person who was on the verge of retirement to head the Tribunal. Within 2 weeks, the matter was heard and allowed in favour of the assesses. He also submitted that the case relating to disproportionate assets before the Special Judge, CBI is at the final stage of hearing.

The Director, CBI has started changing the prosecutors mid-way when the case was nearing completion and that the public prosecutor who was conducting the cases from the very beginning has been replaced by Shri Om Shankar Singh, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Delhi Police who has commenced law practice recently. It is also submitted that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are deliberately pr:ltracting the trial by taking unnecessary adjournments which, by itself, would be a ground for cancellation of bail. He further submitted that by virtue of the new political equations between the party in power in the State of Bihar and at the Centre, respondent No. 5 one of the main accused in the fodder scam now has substantial administrative control and politicai say in the functioning of the Government of India and that the CBI and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have become a party in an efrort to shield respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

He continued to submit that this Court shall monitor the case since the accused are using state machinery to block the judicial process and subvert tht: trial and dilatory tactics being adopted by the accused to delay the trial on one pretext or the other. He also submitted that the prosecutors or investigators connected with the fodder scam matters in the State of Bihar who have till date been discharging their functions in the trial Court should not be disturbed, replaced or sidelined. Mr. Rohatgi, in support of his contentions, invited our attention to the various documents, annexures, income-tax records and the paperbooks. Appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel argued that the petition had been filed only to achieve personal or political gain, no case had been made out for the cancellation of bail to Mr. Latu Prasad Yadav and his wife and this court should not monitor the trial as it would send wrong signals. He also cited m<.

ny decisions with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions at the instance of practicing politicians. He sought dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs. RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 765 Appearing for the CBI, learned Solicitor General G. E. Vahanwati denied point by point the allegations of the petitioners made in their pleadings with reference to various documents and records and proved to our satisfaction that the statements made by the petitioners are not true and correct and have been made with an ulterior motive. Learned Solicitor General further submitted that there had been no interference by Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav or his wife in any of the matters whether in the appointment of Judges or in the change of the prosecutor or on the decision not to file an appeal in the income-tax cases. The learned Solicitor General cited TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) v. Union ofIndia and Ors. , (2006] 5 SCC 28 (Hon. Y. K. Sabharwal, C. J.

, Arijit Pasayat and S. H. Kapadia, JJ. ) and submitted that howsoever genuine a case brought before the Court by a public interest litigant maybe, the Court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bonafides and credentials are in doubt and that no trust can be placed by the Court on a mala fide applicant in public interest litigation. Learned Solicit. or General submitted now it is time to give a severe warning and sound alert since these are basic issues which are required to be satisfied by every public interest litigant. He also cited paras 25 and 26 in support of the contention that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the political rivals. Mr. Ram Jethmalani in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition cited the following decisions: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary and Ors, (1992] 4 SCC 305 (2 Judges) para 109. "It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide an.

i having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. " Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors. , (2005] 1 SCC 590 (Hon. Arijit Pasayat and Hon. S. H. Kapadia, JJ) and invited our attention to para 4,5,9,10,12 and 14. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W. B. , [2004] 3 SCC 349 para 12 "12.

Public interest litigation is a weapon which ha~ to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations.

Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions ofsuch busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs. " S. P. Gupta v. Union ofIndia and Anr. , (1981] Supp SCC 87 7 Judges) para24 "24. But we must be careful to see that the member ofthe public, who approaches the Court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective.

Andre Rabie has warned that "political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the administrative process" and we might add, through the political process, "may try to use the Courts to further their aims". These are some of the dangers in public interest litigation which the Court has to be careful to avoid. It is also necessary for the Court to bear in mind that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and justiciability and it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. The Court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the Execut:ve and the Legislature by RAJJV RANJAN SINQH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 767 the Constitution.

It is a fascinating exerCise for the Court to deal with public interest litigation because it is a new jurisprudence which the Court is evolving, a jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability. The frontiers ofpublic law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines which will change the complexion ofthe law and which were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are beginning to be born. " Mr. Rohatgi submitted that this Court should monitor the conduct of the trial relating to the fodder scam cases against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Union ofIndia and Ors v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi and Ors. , [1998] 8 SCC 661 (3 Judges) para 6 "6. This position is so obvious that no discussion of the point is necessary. However, we may add that this position has never been doubted in similar cases dealt with by this Court. It was made clear by this Court in the very first case, namely Vineet Narain v.

Union ofIndia, [1996] 2 SCC 199 that once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court after completion ofthe investigation, the process of monitoring by this Court for the purpose of making the CBI and other investigative agencies concerned perform their function of investigating into the offences concerned comes to an end; and thereafter it is only the court in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We make this observation only to reiterate this clear position in law so that no doubts in any quarter may survive. It is, therefore, cl. ear that the impugned order of the High Court dealing primarily with this aspect cannot be sustained.

" (emphasis supplied) It is thus clear from the above judgment that once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent Court after completion of the investigation, the process of monitoring by this Court for the purpose of making the CBI and other · investigative agencies concerned perform their function of investigating into offences concerned comes to an end and thereafter, it is only the Court in which the charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8). We respectfully agree with the above view expressed by this Court. In our view, monitoring of pending trial is subversion of criminal law as it stands to mean that the Court behind the back of the accused is entering into a dialogue with the investigating agency. Therefore, there can be no monitoring, after the charge sheet is filed. This Court issued a direction on 22. 02.

2005 to the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to submit a detailed report in regard to the allegations made by the petitioners. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the President of ITAT filed a detailed report dated 09. 03. 2005. A perusal of which shows that there is not an iota of truth in the allegation and all the aforesaid averments are completely baseless. As noticed earlier, certain allegations were made against Mr. R. K. Tyagi and Mr. Mohanarajan whom, according to the petitioners, were due for retirement was appointed to head the Tribunal. It was further stated that on 02. 07. 2004 Mr. R. K. Tyagi who had been hearing the appeal of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was sent on deputation for 2 weeks and was replaced by Mr. Mohanarajan, a person who was on the verge of the retirement to head the Tribunal and that the said Mohanarajan picked up only the cases pertaining to respondent Nos.

4 and 5 and heard the matter and allowed in favour of the assesses and that no appeal has been filed against the said order. On 22. 02. 2005, an order was passed by this Court directing the Union of India to produce before this Court the proposal of CBI dated 20. 07. 2004 and the entire file including notations pertaining to the appointment of Mr. Uma Shankar Shanna as prosecutor. fhe President, ITAT was directed to send to this Court all papers pertaining to constitution of the Bench of Mr. Mohanarajan and Mr. M. K. Sarkar and also to sent copies/order sheets of ITA Nos. 233-237 of 2000 etc. etc. The President, ITAT was directed to state whether Mr. R. K. Tyagi was sent on deputation for two weeks during the period the other two persons were appointed and if so why and on whose behalf he was sent on deputation. On 09. 03. 2005, Mr. Vimal Gandhi, President, ITAT submitted his report.

Flash figures of investigation, disposal and dependency of appeals for the month of April, 2004 and the position as on 01. 05. 2004 with reference to the various benches in the country was furnished (Annexure-2). lt is seen from the report that Mr. D. K. Tyagi, JM, Patna had left India without obtaining pennission as required under the rules and he was accordingly issued a show cause notice to explain about the Jets of indiscipline. This was done in early RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 769 June. Mr. Tyagi also explained the circumstances under which he had gone abroad etc. The President acceded to his request on compassionate grounds and permitted him to remain in Delhi without any T. A. D. A. for I month from June, 21 onwards. The President, ITAT, therefore, has stated that it is not correct to suggest that Tyagi was shunted out of Patna by him. Insofar as Mohanarajan is concerned, the President has explained the position with regard to Mohanarajan and M. K.

Sarkar. He said Mr. Mohanarajan joined the Tribunal as Judicial Member in November, 1995 and posted at Jabalpur, Chennai, Patna and Bangalore and he served in Patna from 02. 09. 2002 onwards till he was transferred to Bangalore in March, 2003. He is sobre in nature and that he is to retire on 06. 11. 2009 and he had never sat with Mr. Sarkar earlier. When Mr. Agarwal's inability to tour Patna was made known to the President in Bangalore, Mohanarajan's name came to his mind as an appropriate person to replace Mr. D. K. Agrawal and he was accordingly directed to camp at Patna in June, 2004 and that the camp was organized accordingly. Insofar as Mr. M. K. Sarkar is concerned, he before joining the Appellate Tribunal Mr. Sarkar was asked managed to Patna and other Benches on camp till regular members were available as pendency at Kolkata was also low. The details of tour of Sarkar to Patna in 2004 has also been furnished.

The learned Solicitor General then invited our attention to Annexure-7 filed along with the report of the President, ITAT. Respondent No. 4 Mr. - Latu Prasad, by his letter dated 15. 10. 2003, addressed a letter to the President, ! TAT, New Delhi requesting for transfer of appeals filed before Patna Bench ofthe Tribunal to Delhi Bench in his case. On 17. 10. 2003, the President made a note on the said letter to call for comments/objections, if any, from the Department/Patna Bench by fax. Mr. Latu Prasad has stated in the said letter that since he is elected as a Member of Rajya Sabha and performed duties p as a Member of Rajya Sabha he has to be present in Delhi and, therefore, the appeals may be transferred from Patna to Delhi Bench. By annexure-8, the Patna Bench gave its response on 31. 12. 2003 stating that the legal aspect of the matter was being examined and that a final report will follow soon. By annexure-9 dated 08. 01.

2004, the Directorate General of Income-tax Patna addressed a letter to Assistant Registrar, ITAT Patna Bench as to whether constituting a special Bench for early disposal of the appeals of Shri Latu Prasad. Annexure-9 was in reply to the ITAT Patna Bench letter dated 11. 11. 2003 and during that time the present Government was not in power. By Annexure-10 the DGIT by their letter dated 23. 04. 2004 stated that it would not be possible to agree to transfer the appeals of Mr. Latu Prasad from ITAT, 770 Sl! PREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S. C. R. Patna B. :nch to ! TAT, Delhi Bench and it may be worthwhile to consider constituting a special Bench for early disposal of these appeals. It is seen from annexure-12 dated 11. 03. 2004 signed by M. A. Bakshi, V. P. ! TAT, Chandigarh Zone that it may not be necessary to constitute a special Bench for disposal of the appeals n:lating to Mr. Latu Prasad. In regard to the prayer for cancellation of the bail at the instance of the petitioner.

we are of the opinion that the said request cannot at all be countenanced. Our attention was drawn to order dated 14. 07. 2003 passed by this Court which reads thus: "We have been extending bail from time to time for a period of six months in order to monitor the trial. In our view, it is not now necessary to do so any further. We, therefore, order that the bail which has been granted by this Court will continue for the duration of the case on the same terms and conditions. We clarify that it will be open to the C. B. I to apply for cancellation of bail in accordance with law in this court. Further, if it is found that the petitioner is deliberately protracting the trial or taking unnecessary adjournments then that by itself would be a ground for cancellation of bail. " Mr. Rohatgi submitted that respondent Nos.

4 and 5 are interfering with the cause of justice so far as conduct of the trial and IT proceedings are concerned and, therefore, the bail granted to them is liable to be cancelled. This submission has no merits in view of the arguments advanced by learned Solicitor General inviting our attention to the various documents and annexures etc. to the effect that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have never interfered with the conduct of trail or with the IT proceedings. It is stated that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are deliberately protracting the trial by taking unnecessary adjournments. Then that itself would be a ground for cancellation of bail. This argument has no substance. It is a fact that the matter was adjourned at the instance of the defence on various occasions. Court itself has adjourned the matter for vari. ius reasons. We, therefore, cannot hold that the delay is solely attributable to respondent Nos.

4 and 5 which, in our opinion, cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail when it is not proved that any of the bail conditions has been violated. The delay is attributable to both the prosecution and the defence and also to the Court. Therefore, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be held responsible for the delay. Mr. Rohatgi argued that Munni Lal Paswan should be changed from the present place and some other officer should be posted there. Mr. Ram RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' v. U. 0. 1. [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 771 Jethmalani, at the time of hearing, explained to this Court as to how and under what circumstances the earlier incumbent of the office - Mr. Yogendra Prasad was shifted at his own request and that how Munni Lal Paswan was promoted recently and posted at Patna for the conduct of the matters. We summoned the Registrar General of Patna High Court on 26. 07. 2006. The Registrar General Madhusudhan Singh has also filed an affidavit in regard to the three queries raised by us.

The Registrar General explained to this Court in regard to the practice in the High Court of Patna and how the matter is placed before the Standing Committee and the remarks of the inspecting Judges and the guard files which are maintained separately ofeach officers which were made available to the Standing Committee. The said fact also finds mention in the decision dated 22. 06. 2005 of the Standing Committee. In regard to query No. 3 the Registrar has submitted as follows:- That in regard to Query No. 3 of this Hon'ble Court as mentioned in the order dated 26. 7. 2006, I respectfully say and submit that the remarks of the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge in case of Shri Jawahar Prasad Ratnesh was of the year 1985, 1986-87, 1988, 200 I, 2003 and 2005 (and remarks recorded by P. O. , Industrial Tribunal, Patna in 1998). In respect of Shri Ram Niwas Prasad, the remarks recorded by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge was of 1985, 1986, 1997 and 2002.

As regards Shri Munni Lal Paswan, the remarks recorded by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge was of 1985 and 1990 and by Vice•Chainnan, Industrial Tribunal, Patna Bench in 1997. " We have perused the records submitted by the High Court in regard to the officers including Munni Lal Paswan. There is absolutely no adverse entry against Munni Lal Paswan and that poor record if any is not the record of integrity and that no gradation has been given to officers after 1997 onwards including Paswan. We have perused the proceedings of the meetings of the Standing Committee held on 22. 06. 2005 in the chambers of the Hon'ble Chief Justice which reads thus: Proceedings of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 22nd June, 2005 in the Chambers of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice: Agenda Decision To consider the matter regarding Having considered the relevant service Postings if three Special Judges at records of the officers concerned and also Patna for C. B. I. (Foddert!

Scam taking into consideration the fact that Cases), C. B. I. (South Bihar) and no allegation petition has been recieved Vigilance Cases (Court No. I) in against Sri Muni Lal Paswan. Additional Place of S/Shri Yogendra Prasad, District Judge, Saharsa. It is resolved that Mungeshwar Sahoo and Jitendra let him (Sri Muni Lal Paswan) be posted Mohan Sharma, respectively (P. F. as Special Judge for C. B. I. (Fodder Scam XXVII-5-98) Cases) at Patna. It is further resolved upon consideration of the relevant service records of the officers concerned that Sri J. P. Ratnesh, Additional District Judge, Patna, be posted as Special Judge, C. B. I. (South ... ,.... Bihar) and Sri Ram Niwas Prasad, Additional District Judge, Patna as Special Judge for Vigilance Case (Court No. I). In view of the urgency of the matter, the office is directed to take necessary steps for issue of notification