1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2835 OF 2010 Vijay J. Darda ....Petitioner V/s. The Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel with Ms.Prachiti Darda i/b M/s.ALMT Legal for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, G.P. for the Respondent - State. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsel for the parties as well as the learned Government Pleader for the State. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has not only assailed the directions passed by the concerned Senior judge of the Nagpur Bench of this Court on the administrative side on the submissions made by the office, but has also challenged the findings noted in the preliminary report prepared by the police officer under the instructions of the Superintendent of Police. 3. The first grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.2 had no business to place the subject submission before the Senior Judge 2 of Nagpur Bench on the administrative side on the basis of some communication received from Respondent No.7. We do not find any merits in this submission. For the Respondent No.2, on receipt of the complaint addressed to the High Court, was bound to make the submission in that behalf to the concerned Senior Judge. We cannot countenance the submission that the Respondent No.2 was not authorized to make such submission before the Senior Judge of the Nagpur Bench as such or that no steps could have been taken on the administrative side at all. 4. The Petitioner would then contend that the submission made by Respondent No.2 on which the Senior Judge passed directions on 20.7.2007, was not taken into account nor brought to the notice of the Senior Judge of Nagpur Bench when the subsequent directions were obtained on 29.8.2007 on the basis of subsequent complaints received from Respondent No.7 dated 8.8.2007, 17.8.2007 and 20.8.2007 respectively. The fact that on 20.7.2007, the Senior Judge of the Nagpur Bench had noted on the submission made by Respondent No.2 that the applications received from Respondent No.7 be filed and the similar complaint/application received from him by the office in future be filed, without any submission, does not mean that in the changed situation and more so in spite of the tenor of communication sent by Respondent No.7, stating that he would proceed on hunger strike in front of the District Court, Yavatmal, the Respondent No.2 should not have brought it to the notice of the Senior Judge of the Nagpur Bench. On account of the seriousness of the issue and threats given by Respondent No.7, Respondent No.2 was justified in making his submission to be put up before the Senior Judge of 3 Nagpur Bench and invite directions thereon. Thus understood, no fault can be found with the Respondent No.2. The submission made before the Senior Judge reads as under :- “The office has put up the applications of Shri Digambar H. Pajgade dated 8th, 17th and 20th August, 2007 before the Hon’ble Senior Judge of this Bench with following proposal. In view of above and if Your Hon’ble Lordship approves, copy of these applications may be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, by informing him that the Writ Petition bearing Nos.1864/1999, 2559/2002 & 5198/2006 have been disposed by this Hon’ble Court and as he is on hunger strike in front of District Court, Yavatmal, to take appropriate action in this matter and to submit action taken report to office under intimation to Principal District Judge, Yavatmal. OR Any other suitable direction/or may be given. Thereafter the Hon’ble Senior Judge passed the following order/direction. “A” Yes.” 5. Considering the contents of the communications received from Respondent No.7 and more particularly referred to in the submission made, was considered on the administrative side by the Senior Judge of the Nagpur Bench. The argument of the Petitioner that the High Court and more particularly Respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to initiate such enquiry, will have to be stated to be rejected. The letters which are received in the form of complaint from the litigants and others are placed by the office before the concerned Judge inviting directions. On such submission, direction is given either to treat the letter as a public interest litigation or to refer it to appropriate statutory authority who can look into 4 the matter and proceed in accordance with law. The submission, which was placed before the Senior Judge on 29.8.2007 was of the latter type, seeking direction to forward a copy of the complaint received from Respondent No.7 to the Superintendent of Police in the context of the threat given by Respondent No.7. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the reference made by Respondent No.2 to the Superintendent of Police on the basis of the directions given by the Senior Judge of Nagpur Bench on the said submission on 29.8.2007. 6. The next grievance of the Petitioner is that the Superintendent of Police assigned the enquiry to Mr.A.G. Tripathi, the Police Inspector on the control room, Yavatmal, who in turn after enquiry conducted behind the back of the Petitioner submitted his report on the basis of which the Superintendent of Police prepared the report dated 11.6.2008 and forwarded the same to Respondent No.2. Indeed, in respect of the points of enquiry, the finding of the enquiry have been noted. The enquiry caused to be undertaken by the Superintendent of Police was obviously in the nature of a preliminary enquiry. The said report, so received, was then forwarded on the basis of the directions given by the Senior Judge of Nagpur Bench on 21.7.2008 to the Director, Department of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation, New Delhi for such action as may be deemed fit in the matter. The grievance of the Petitioner is that this report of the Superintendent of Police has been prepared behind the back of the Petitioner. Besides, the Superintendent of Police could not have recorded a positive finding on points under consideration in particular as to whether 5 the allotment of land is legal or otherwise and other related issues. We have already indicated that the report is in the nature of a preliminary enquiry undertaken by the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal. The action on the basis of the said report will now be proceeded by the Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation, New Delhi. It is seen that the report has since been forwarded to the Chief Secretary for information, and to submit action taken report, as is noticed from the communication sent by the Director, Department of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation, Government of India dated 25.8.2008. If any proceedings are to be initiated on the basis of that report, the Petitioner would certainly get an opportunity, before any action is contemplated against the Petitioner. The fact that the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal prepared the report without giving opportunity to the Petitioner does not take the matter any further, as the final action if at all will be proceeded against the Petitioner only after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner by the competent authority in accordance with law. There is nothing on record, as of now, to suggest that any further action against the Petitioner has in fact been initiated on the basis of the communication dated 25.8.2008 (Exhibit “M”) sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra. In absence of any further action against the Petitioner, the present Petition is merely on the basis of the apprehension that the report prepared by the Superintendent of Police and the finding noted therein would be treated as final for taking action against the Petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. We have no doubt that appropriate authority would comply with the 6 requirements of law before taking any action against the Petitioner in the light of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. This Court need not examine the correctness of the finding in that preliminary enquiry report, which is a matter to be enquired into by the appropriate authority as and when occasion arises. That exercise by this Court would result in interdicting the process of law to be taken to its logical end as envisaged in the communication dated 25.8.2008 addressed to the Chief Secretary. As per the said communication, the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra is obliged to submit his action taken report urgently. 7. It is then contended that the grievances made by Respondent No.7 in his complaint were raised in Writ Petition No.3559 of 2002 and it has been answered in favour of the Petitioner in the order dated 30.12.2002, passed by the High Court, Nagpur Bench on the judicial side. As a matter of fact, the said Writ Petition was not filed by Respondent No.7 but by some other person, namely, Pramod Ramkrishna Ajmere. According to the Petitioner, similar grievance was made in other two Petitions including the one filed by the Respondent No.7 before the Nagpur Bench. Further, the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.7 has already been disposed of on the same terms. We have no doubt that appropriate authority would consider this aspect of the matter before taking any action on the basis of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. The efficacy of the decision of the High Court will have to be examined and if the point in issue is answered in positive terms in favour of the Petitioner, that will have to be reckoned before taking any final decision in the matter. We leave all questions open in that behalf. 7 8. For the reasons mentioned earlier, in our opinion, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)