Rattan Singh Gill v. State of J&K and ors Coram
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU OWP no. 546/2011 Date of order: 11.12.2013 Rattan Singh Gill v. State of J&K and ors Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge Appearing counsel: For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Aditiya Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr.AAG for respondents 1 to 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Javed Iqbal, Advocate for R-4. Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate for respondents 11 to 14. Mr. S.K.Shukla, Advocate for respondents 5, 6,8 & 9. Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, Advocate for respondents 7& 10 Mr. S.M.Choudhary, Advocate for respondent 16. i) Whether to be reported in Press, Journal/Media Whether to be reported in ii/ Digest/ Journal M. M. Kumar, CJ : Yes/No : Yes/No 1. The petitioner, claiming to be a public spirited person, has filed the instant petition with a prayer for initiating action against seven members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), who have been impleaded as respondents. The basic ground for the relief claimed is that they have violated the oath administered to them and have indulged in corrupt practices with regard to election of six members of the Legislative Council which were held on 13.04.2011. A 2 further prayer has been made for referring the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation as to whether any bribe was paid for ensuring cross voting in favour of the ruling party, use of government money and registration of a case against those found guilty for having paid and received the illegal gratification and misuse of government fund. 2. It is appropriate to mention that elections to the six seats of Legislative Council were notified by respondent no.3 which was conducted on the basis of Electoral College comprising of the members of the Legislative Assembly. The elections for six seats were to be held by way of secret ballot. There are allegations indicating that the present ruling alliance of Congress and National Conference parties could not have secured five seats. It was made possible only on account of violation of whip issued to its MLAs by the BJP. According to the allegation, seven out of eleven MLAs indulged in corruption and voted against the party mandate. There are allegations that on account of accepting the payment in cash they have sold themselves to vote for the Congress and National Conference party alliance. In that regard some newspaper reports have been placed on record by the petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit. Therefore, a prayer has been made that the ruling alliance may not prefer to register a case against 3 those who have indulged in corruption and the Court must interfere by granting the prayer made by the petitioner. 3. By placing on record complaint dated 14.06.2012 and the report of the Vigilance Commissioner, separate applications were filed by the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 1 and 3. The report of the Vigilance Commissioner filed on 10.10.2012 in WPPIL no. 4/2011 suggests that cognizance of the matter by the Vigilance Organization was not within the ambit of abuse of official position as envisaged under the Prevention of Corruption Act Svt. 2006 because casting votes contrary to the party whip is entirely different matter which is not covered by those provisions. The report further suggested that elections to the Legislative Council are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 and as per Section 102 of the said Act no person can be forced to reveal for whom he has voted as the election is strictly by secret ballot. It was also pointed out that the allegations made in the complaints did not disclose offences covered by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It would be appropriate to notice para 5 and 6 of that report which reads as under:- “5. That, Section 132 of Representation of Peoples Act deals with corrupt practices during Elections which is punishable under section 171-E of Ranbir Penal Code, which is a non- cognizable offence. Cognizance by courts in such offence is possible only upon complaint made by order of, or such other officer as may be empowered by the Government in 4 this behalf as envisaged under section 196 Criminal Procedure Code. 6. That, the allegations/grounds in the complaints are vague, wild and of general nature which do not disclose any instance of transactions; hence, do not warrant initiation of verification/ enquiry in light of rule 3.5 (ii) J&K Vigilance Manual 2008.” 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and do not feel persuaded to grant any relief as claimed by the petitioner. The question concerning violation of the party whip is not within the domain of the Courts. It is an internal matter of a political party particularly in the teeth of provision for casting vote by secret ballot. Moreover there is no material on record that the act of violating the party whip by BJP members was preceded and actuated by acceptance of any cash amount or any other extraneous consideration which may warrant interference. The press report do not go to the extent of providing any credible information which may constitute the basis for taking cognizance and issuing directions for investigating the matter. 5. We are further of the view that under the garb of Public Interest Litigation some oblique motive is sought to be achieved by the petitioner. We cannot appreciate the endeavour of the petitioner to undertake any such enterprise which lacks substance and context. The writ petition is thus complete 5 misuse of the process of the Court and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6.
Decision
As a sequel to the above, the writ petition is held to be a frivolous piece of litigation. Accordingly the proceedings are closed. However, we saddle the petitioner with cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be deposited with the Secretary Legal Services Committee of the High Court at Jammu. (Hasnain Massodi) (M. M. Kumar) Judge Chief Justice JAAMU: 11.12.2013 Anil Raina, Secy.