'^ :?:! -. .r,>>r*-c.-r:~r-".-..»3r-Pr-- '• ^IV- ,^ IS 'SES HIGE G0®fOP Ji2£EGA®mE_OI_OHAtSISGABH.BILASPDR. c*^-<?, lir.^A'PAP AGEt&¥A£ S^o.l.a-te B.N.Agrawal, Advocate^ Ja^dalpur, 494©01» -^SY- vs< State 6f Ghaiiisgarh •fchroi3gh ; Seceta^y» Beptt of General Adainistratioa, Maairalaya» Kaipur. Ap^l.ieasat, lOB-applicaat^ i '-^ <-^. ^ ?\ /.^<<^. PiaMic In-fcerest Kttigation fbr appropriate BHIS, diredting state of Cha'fctisgarlmfor admiMstration of oriminal justice. The applicant sutaaits as under $ ..^^s^^ XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r '[<Iriw snt^i ^Ri^ ^f^cT 6-8-2001 ^- ^-^ '^{^M^ "^rflp^, 1^TRJy ^ 3^^r xr5ra? W«JP^N&^8a/2QOjl. WR^IL^W^r { '^ 200 •l^sr' 3?n^i ^<n^R'Hf^T ^ thit Shrl O < P ^ Agrawal Shrl N«K. Shukla,] Pfeard.sy ®ilspet^ petltioner styling as publi{: Learned counsel fol the avennent s made in the referred to paragraph 19 o£| petitloner had subm-Ltted Public Prosecutor In SesslQiis Shyamsunder Khatri) before t endlng in convlctlon^ and aj. (S-tate vs. Indrajeet). In the applicant/petltioner examined but the labour put clear if the case 1s examin^d and has all rlghts to be in the fleld of hls merit• personal convenlence of the the letters and r^commendatil Police not heeded tb f The and paralysed when a ctlori Naiikarshahi 1s requlred and wKen they want to; suppress Admlnistratlon has ioj.ned ^Rfel^T 'RTHoTf ^ f^t Tf^5K ^ 3Tf^FT 3:H^T jfor fche petitlQner^ •A ^G *, £or the respdnderrfc/St^te o Ji.tlon has been flled by the interest litigation• ^ the respondent submlts t hat p^feation are self servlng ^ He the petition whereln the he was appolnted as Special Trlal No.201/98 (State vs. ^.he Addl oSessions Judge ^ JagdaApur .so in Special case No.61/98 case, the appointment came to the eye-wltnesses had been |in by the petitioner wlll be He is a cltjLzep of Jnd. a with respect and response rphis should not depend on the |<3istri.ct admlni.stration* Why |ons of Inspector General of tdminlstratlon becomes deaf ^ dumb a^ain^fe mafla of Seth-Neta- jare very actlve and viol^nt tlhis wh4.ie tr^ated hjonest person^ with ir^grlty^ _w.Jth crlmln^l <^ <=» cg ^ halnds [Tft^ $R^4 -{^rtner XI-HC-22 ~^^ ^l^i<yl^, ^TS^^i^ Rit<rtj<Hy -sij^T^r. 'f^fNsT!^] ^HwMfi^ ^. ...\ Wq^IS; ^HI^ ani^r TR^ .sw<>p?.!fe«38i^2Q01'W!, 200 l^^sr' 3Ti^T'^RHW^Ita 2 —i ire involved in blackmail, of the gang < The officers aj3 \ cheating^ corrupfcion^ goon<2aJL|sum and abuse of power • It 1s also pointecS! Malik Brothers vs • Narendral the garb of publdtc interest| for the benefit of any indi| ^N?d^}^ ^T«^ff'^feT^'tf^^s< ^T 3Tf^TRr3?H^T out that in the case of E^dhlch and others reported in 2000(1)>TL>T 36,t|"te Apex Court has dealt the matter • The self serving l|itigation 1s ±o be avoided In Iltigation and shpuld not be AP vldual o It jls^held that/in the garb of public interest lltjigatton^ actually an indivldual <s interest As sought to be catrrled out or isrikBsxs protected^ it would be the bounden dut! such petltion as otherwise of publlc interest litigatil f o£ the Court not to entertain l:he -very purpose of innovation >rit wlll be ifrystrated o The Apex Court has further held as uhder s 11 It 1s Xn fact a I|ttigatlon xn ^'iich a person 1s not aggrieved on behalf of the d redressal of their It 1s further submil General that t he al l^gationt Pravlr Krlsftna and Snt oRlchti joined as parties o - Learned counsel fot srsonally but brihgs an actiori 3wntrodden mass fbrthe gri.evance ;^ ^ted by the Iteiputy Advocate s have been made against Shri Sharma»who have not been r the petltloner referred tb the pft^^R^ ^ XI-HC—78 ^^ ^n^i<yi4, ^Til^4i<i, f^rray W«P,No,388/2001 WH<?11 @»Ni^ •^200 ^i^T-q^^Crt^r) '3T(^T^?1^ri^ Wff ^?TW^ :"^*v^' ^: ^TlW^f^a^l 3 ! • ~! case reported in 1988 SCC( vs• Uhion of India and othl that the appolntment of anl Prosecutor cannot be made d complalnanto Request of tli( appolntment must be examlndd the basls of guidellnes and decision taken ?rs), wherein it has been held advocate as Speclal Public ^n mere asking by private M ^e private eomplainant for sueh by Legal Remembrancer on^ ^ prejscrlbed or to be prescribed accordin|gly So far as the facts ol concerned. they are altogefct abovesald case < In the aforesald factl mafcerlal on record, we flnd invok;ing the extra ordinaryl interest lltlgaCion^ especi< the allegatlons agalnst Shrj Sharma have been made^who hc [partles and rovlng Inquiry Rules of prudence and jpublic Interest Iltlgation jused to settle personal dlspittes ^rafe^T -qitRif if fe^^PC?R ^^m^i^T !rl)566 (Mukul Dalal an3. otters >|E the present case are :{ier dlfferent from the and. circumstances and the that no case is made out for jurlsdlctlon under publlc |lly in vlew of the fact that Pravir Krlshna and Smt.Richa |ve not been Joi.ned as qannot be ordered, ;autlon also requj.re that spould not be allowed to be 4. XI-HC—78 •^ ^- WN'W^HI^ "S^ •^i^Kt^, ^•fll^'iKo, fs)dt<iitl,< .„-„...w.?.p»Nb.*388//2001. •^.200 ^?i>tra% (^f^N^) ai?^r^T^t^ i?^ 'SJ^T %^r '^NX ^St^ ^^ 4 1- Having considered th^ petitlon as publlc Interesi and 1s accordingly dlsmiss^d w^f^N 'w^ ^ f^S xNr^'R ^ -3^^ ^lt^ Sd/- Chief Justice case^ In our oplnjlon, the lltigatlon deserves to be Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge