1 wp-1593-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1593 OF 2011 Ketan K. Tirodkar ...Petitioner Versus State via Home Department (Principal Secretary) ...Respondents Petitioner in person. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 27, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Tirodkar, the petitioner party in person and Mr.Gadkari appears for the State of Maharashtra. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of 2 wp-1593-2011 Maharashtra Vs. Sarngdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan and anr. [(2011) 1 SCC 577], the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: (a) The State of Maharashtra be directed to add Vilas Deshmukh as an accused in the same investigations for utilizing the State Office of Chief Minister and the machinery for interfering in criminal justice for the benefit of suspect; and (b) the State be ordered to recover the amount of penalty worth Rs.10,00,000/- from Deshmukh and ensure its utilization for wider interests of public and society. 3. Mr. Tirodkar, the party in person has stated in the petition that on account of lack of financial resources he could not annex a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court and relied by him and, therefore, on our instructions a copy of the said judgment was made available by the learned APP to the petitioner. With the assistance of both the parties we have gone through the said judgment. 3 wp-1593-2011 4. Paras 46 to 48 read as under: “46. This Court is extremely anguished to see that such an instruction could come from the Chief Minister of a State which is governed under a Constitution which resolves to constitute India into a socialist, secular, democratic republic. The Chief Minister’s instructions are so incongruous and anachronistic, being in defiance of all logic and reason, that our conscience is deeply disturbed. We codemn the same in no uncertain terms. 47. We affirm the order of the High Court and direct that the instruction of the Chief Minister to the Collector dated 5-6-2006 has no warrant in law and is unconstitutional and is quashed. 48. We dismiss this appeal with costs of Rs.10,00,000 (rupees ten lakhs) to be paid by the appellant in favour of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. This fund shall be earmarked by the Authority to help the cases of poor 4 wp-1593-2011 farmers. Such costs should be paid within a period of six weeks from date.” 5. Whereas in paras 69, 70 and 71 the Supreme Court stated, “69. The facts of this case, as noticed in the judgment prepared by Brother Justice Ganguly, show that with a view to frustrate the complaint made by Respondent 1 who alleged that Respondent 2 Gokulchand Sananda, his family members and some other moneylenders were harassing him and other farmers and also to stall the action likely to be initiated by the police authorities concerned under the Bombay Moneylenders Act, 1946, Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, a Member of the Legislative Assembly approached the Chief Minister for a special treatment. In the first place, the Principal Secretary of the Chief Minister made enquiries from the police station about the cases registered against Sananda. Thereafter, the Chief Minister, without verifying the truthfulness or otherwise of the assertion of Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda that false complaints were being lodged against his family members, 5 wp-1593-2011 issued instructions that complaints against the MLA concerned and his family members should be first placed before the District Anti-Moneylending Committee, which should obtain legal opinion of the District Government Pleader and then only take decision on the same and take appropriate legal action. 70. The camouflage of sophistry used by Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh in the instructions given by him and the affidavit filed before this Court is clearly misleading. The message to the authorities was loud and clear i.e. they were not to take the complaints against Sananda family seriously and not to proceed against them. The District Magistrate, the District Superintendent of Police and officers subordinate to them were bound to comply with the same in their letter and spirit. They could disregard those instructions at their own peril and none of them was expected to do so. 71. The District Anti-Moneylending Committee was constituted by the Government of Maharashtra vide 6 wp-1593-2011 Resolution No.MLA.1204/CR/280/C/7/S dated 19/10/2009 for protecting the farmers against unscrupulous moneylenders and not for protecting the wrong-doers, but in total disregard of the scheme of the Act, the Chief Minister gave instructions which had the effect of frustrating the object of the legislation enacted for protection of the farmers. The instructions given by the Chief Minister to District Collector, Buldhana were ex facie ultra vires the provisions of the Act which do not envisage any role of the Chief Minister in cases involving violation of the provisions of the Act and amounted to unwanted interference with the functioning of the authorities entrusted with the task of enforcing the Act enacted for regulating, controlling transactions of moneylending and protecting unsuspecting borrowers against oppression and harassment at the hands of unscrupulous moneylenders.” 6. Our attention was also invited to the observations made in para 38 of the said judgment which reads as under: “38. This being the ground reality, as the Chief Minister of 7 wp-1593-2011 the State and as holding a position of great responsibility as a high constitutional functionary, Mr.Vilasrao Deshmukh certainly acted beyond all legal norms by giving the impugned directions to the Collector to protect members of a particular family who are dealing in moneylending business from the normal process of law. This amounts to bestowing special favour to some chosen few at the cost of the vast number of poor people who as farmers have taken loans and who have come to the authorities of law and order to register their complaints against torture and atrocities by the moneylenders. The instructions of the Chief Minister will certainly impede their access to legal redress and bring about a failure of the due process.” 7. The Supreme Court noted that the Chief Minster, without verifying the truthfulness or otherwise of the assertion of Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, MLA that false complaints were being lodged against his family members, issued instructions that complaints against the MLA concerned and his family members must be placed before the District Anti- Moneylending Committee, which should obtain legal opinion of the 8 wp-1593-2011 District Government Pleader and then only take decision on the same and take appropriate legal action. 8. The Supreme Court recorded its extreme anguish for these instructions and held that they were so incongruous and anachronistic being in defiance of all logic and reason, that the Court’s conscience was deeply disturbed. The Court also condemned the same in no uncertain terms and awarded exemplary cost of Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant i.e. the State of Maharshtra, in favour of the Maharshtra State Legal Services Authority. While affirming the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the instructions of the Chief Minister to the Collector issued on 5/6/2006 had no warrant in law and thus unconstitutional and, therefore, were quashed. It further held that the instructions given by the Chief Minister to the District Collector, Buldhana were ex facie ultra vires the provisions of the Act which do not envisage any role of the Chief Minister in cases involving violation of the provisions of the Act and amounted to an unwanted interference with the functioning of the authorities entrusted with the task of enforcing the Act enacted for regulating, controlling transactions of moneylending and protecting unsuspecting borrowers against oppression and harassment at 9 wp-1593-2011 the hands of unscrupulous moneylenders 9. Mr.Gadkari, the learned APP stated before us that he was not aware whether a Review Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, in our opinion, this petition cannot be entertained by us. The petitioner’s contention that an offence be registered against the then Chief minister and that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- be recovered from him may have to be addressed somewhere else and not in this petition, having regard to the order passed by the Supreme Court. 10. Hence the petition is rejected summarily. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)