:1: bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.702 OF 2010 Dr.Leo Rebello ..Petitioner Vs. Govt. of India,Delhi ..Respondent Dr.Leo Rebello – petitioner in person. Mr.D.J.Khambata,A.S.G. With Mr.A.M.Sethna and Mr.Vinod Joshi for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATE : 6TH APRIL,2010 P.C. Heard. Perused petition. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: a) Three tainted persons, namely, NRI hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal of USA, Dr.Prakash Reddy of the Apollo Hospital, Bangalore, and actor Saif Ali Khan of Mumbai, should be removed. Instead the name of Dr.Leo Rebello be included in the Padma Bhushan list and that of Mr.Kishore Namit Kapoor be included in place of Actor Saif Ali Khan, who is his one of the students. This should not be difficult, as in the past, the names of Dr.Bindeshwar Pathak and Shri Kishorebhai Ratilal Zaveri were released on January, 20, 1991. (Ref. Decision dated 10.08.2009 delivered by the Central Information Commission in Mr.S.C.Agrawal’s RTI appeal). b) If the Govt. remains adamant, this Hon’ble Court may hold the Padma Awards list 2010 in abeyance and direct the Govt. of India to constitute a committee under the Chairmanship of the Vice President of :2: India with Dr.Leo Rebello as the member Secretary, the opposition leader and 5 eminent citizens of India, as members. This committee of 9 persons, within 7 days, should submit an objective assessment to this Court. This Hon’ble Court may then pas final orders on the basis of the said Report of the Committee. This will be swift, just, proper and final remedy, for which this petition is submitted. This time frame is necessary and valid under 226, as the Petitioner does not wish to penalise the deserving award winners due to the laxity or delays. 2. From the facts appearing in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is aggrieved since his name has not been considered for Padma Bhushan Award by the Union of India. According to him, he ought to have been selected for the said prestigious Award. In his submission some of the awardees named in the petition could not have been selected for the prestigious Award like Padma Bhushan. He, thus, prayed that act of Union of India awarding Padma Bhushan in their favour be set-aside. His another prayer is that 64 persons have already been awarded awards in the function held a month before, whereas remaining 66 persons are being awarded awards tomorrow i.e. 7th April, 2010, hence, this Court should stay the act of awarding awards to the awardees scheduled on 7th April, 2010. From the annexures to the petition, it appears that the petitioner had moved RTI applications in the month of February,2009, since then he is trying to enforce his right to set up in the petition. 3. Having heard the petitioner-in-person and learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed summarily. The present petition is, certainly not a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The petitioner himself is claiming that he should be one of the awardees. In this view of the matter, it was expected on the part of the petitioner, at least to approach this Court well within a reasonable time. Those persons, who, according to the petitioner are not deserving candidates or should not have been included in the list of awardees ought to have been joined as parties to :3: the petition. Behind their back, it will not be legal on the part of this Court to make any assessment about their inclusion in the list. Consequently, this petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. So far as the list of persons for prestigious awards is concerned, part of the list has already been acted upon. 64 persons have already been awarded with prestigious award, whereas 66 persons are going to be awarded in a function scheduled on 7th April, 2010. Their names have already been declared. Under these circumstances, this Court would not be justified in considering the petition at such a belated stage. Petition, thus, suffers from delay and latches. 5. The learned ASG is justified in contending that the grant of Padma Bhushan Award is preceded by the deliberations by the members of the Committee constituted for the purpose. The decisions are taken based on the policy of the State. In the petition, neither policy nor the minutes of meeting in which awardees were selected is produced before this Court so as to examine the legality thereof. Under these circumstances, in our considered view, the petition lacks in material facts and particulars apart from the technical flaw pointed out hereinbefore. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)