SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohanprasad Tripathy
Vs
State of Maharashtra and Others
Appeal (Civil) 6490-6491 of 2004
(Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan and L. S. Panta, JJ)
23.05.2006
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Maharashtra. Since
respondent Nos.2 to 15 are not apparently interested in contesting these
appeals, notice of lodgment of petition of these appeals were ordered to be
issued only to respondent No.1 for hearing.
The present appeals are directed against the order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur against the judgment and final order
dt.25.09.2003 in Civil Application No.3778 of 2003 in Writ Petition No.2564 of
2002 and the judgment and final order dt.24.11.2003 passed in Civil Application
No.6770 of 2003 in Civil Application No.3778 of 2003 in the same Writ Petition
whereby the High Court finally dismissed both the aforesaid applications of the
petitioner therein who is the appellant in these two appeals.
The Writ Petition No.2564 of 2002 was filed by the petitioners as Public
Interest Litigation. According to the appellant, he is associated with various
social organisations and devoted to the cause of the poor and needy persons and
fighting against the evils of corruption. He filed the above Writ Petition for
an enquiry into the affairs in the episode of mustering support for the trust
motion concluded on 13.06.2002 in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly in
favour of respondent No.5 (Mr.Vilasrao Deshmukh), the then Chief Minister of
the State of Maharashtra.
The High Court vide order dt.24.07.2002 directed the appellant to deposit a sum
of Rs.1 lac within a period of four weeks otherwise the Writ Petition would be
dismissed without reference to the Court. It is beneficial in this context to
reproduce the order passed by the High Court on 24.07.2002 which is as under:-
"Matter is not on board.
Mentioned.
This is a public interest Litigation filed by the Petitioners seeking various
directions from this court and an order for enquiry into the affairs which took
place at the time of motion taken out in the Legislative Assembly to repose
Trust in favour of the Chief Minister.
We direct the Petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.one lakh within a period of
four weeks. On such amount being deposited, this Court would taken up the
matter for admission otherwise it would be dismissed without reference to the
Court.
It is made clear that no extension of time for depositing the amount will be
granted."
Pursuant to the said order dt.24.07.2002, the appellant on 29.07.2002 deposited
an amount of Rs.1 lakh vide C.No.002327. The High Court, after deposit of the
said amount of Rs.1 lakh by the appellant, issued notice to the respondents
vide order dt.05.08.2002. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the
respondent No.5, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, resigned, for inquiry
against whom the said Writ Petition revolved around for mustering support for
the trust motion concluded on 13.06.2002 in the Maharashtra State Legislative
Assembly in favour of respondent No.5 and, therefore, the said Writ Petition
became infructuous. The appellant filed an application being Civil Application
No.3229 of 2003 dt.11.06.2003 for permission to withdraw the said Writ Petition
and for further permission to withdraw the amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited vide
C.No.002327 dt.29.07.2002. The said application is marked as Annexure P-3 in
these appeals. It is stated in the said application that the Chief Minister
himself had resigned from the post of Chief Minister and thus the prayer in the
Writ Petition for inquiry against him became infructuous and, therefore, the
appellant do not want to prosecute the petition further and, therefore, sought
for withdrawal of the same. A prayer for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1 lakh
which was deposited by the appellant was also made.
The High Court vide order dt.13.06.2003 dismissed the said Writ Petition as
infructuous as the cause of action in the said Writ Petition has come to an
end. However, the High Court dismissed the Civil Application No.3229 of 2003
directing the appellant to file a separate application for withdrawal of the
said amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited by him in the court pursuant to the order
dt.24.07.2002. The appellant thereafter filed the Civil application No.3778 of
2003 for permission to withdraw the said amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited by him.
The said Civil Application No.3778 of 2003 was listed for hearing on
11.08.2003. The High Court adjourned the matter for filing additional affidavit
disclosing therein the source from which the appellant collected the said
amount of Rs.1 lakh for depositing the same in the court. Pursuant to the said
order, the appellant filed an affidavit on 23.08.2003 giving details of the
sources through which the said amount was generated for depositing in the
Court. The High Court, however, was not satisfied with the said affidavit and
vide order dt.02.08.2003 directed the appellant to file proper affidavit
disclosing the the exact source of the said amount of Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter,
the appellant filed another affidavit on 24.09.2003 giving details of the
amount collected through various sources. The first affidavit is marked as
Annexure P-7 and the second affidavit marked as Annexure P-8 reads as under:-
"2. I say and submit that in an affidavit dated 23/08/2003 I have
already explained regarding my financial status. I have made categorical
statement in the said affidavit that the amount of Rs.1, 00, 000/- (Rupees one
lakh only) deposited in the Court on 29/07/2002 was the amount generated from
various sources like pension, post retirement benefits, income received by me
and by my wife from the business of publication of newspaper, agricultural
income, rental income and the amount of compensation received by us because of
death of my son and cash credit facility of Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited. I
say, submit, assert and reiterate that the amount of Rs.1, 00, 000/- (Rupees
one lakh only) deposited in the Court on 29/07/2002 was the amount generated
from the aforesaid sources. Because of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said
that the amount of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- (Rupees one lakh only) deposited in the
Court on 29/07/2002 was from a particular individual source.
3. However, as I can gather, on the said date I arranged the said amount of
Rs.1, 00, 000/- (Rupees one lakh only) required to be deposited in the Court in
the following manner.
(i)Cash of around Rs.60, 000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) was available in
our office of M/s.Public Parliament. Generally the cash is maintained in our
office for the purchases like newsprint, payment to be made to the parties etc.
In our business we generally receive cash from our agents, hawkers and
customers.
(ii) Cash of around Rs.25, 000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) was
available in my house with my wife. (iii) Remaining cash of around Rs.15, 000/-
(Rupees fifteen thousand only) was arranged."
The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dt.25.09.2003 dismissed the
application of the appellant refusing permission to withdraw the said amount of
Rs.1 lakh deposited by the appellant in the High Court. The appellant again
filed an application for reviewing the order dt.25.09.2003 which was also
dismissed.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the High Court has neither
considered the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of the appellant nor
did consider the contention and affidavit dt.24.09.2003 in respect of
disclosure of source of amount of Rs.1 lakh. We have also extracted the second
affidavit filed by the appellant in the High Court and the said affidavit is
self-explanatory. The appellant has also stated that the Chartered Accountant
on production of books of account as demanded by the Chartered Accountant,
examined the books of account and the cash account produced by the appellant,
issued the Certificate dt.23.10.2003 to the effect that the appellant had cash
in hand of Rs.1, 23, 293/- as on 27.07.2002 out of which the appellant had
withdrawn Rs.60, 000/- on 28.07.2002 for court purposes as per the voucher
produced.
The High Court in its order dt.25.09.2003 has clearly observed that the cause
of action of the Writ Petition had come to an end and, therefore, no fruitful
purpose was to be served by keeping the petition pending. Having observed that
the Writ Petition has become infructuous, the High Court ought to have ordered
refund of Rs.1 lakh which was ordered to be deposited by the High Court to show
the bonafide of the Public Interest Litigant. The appellant has also filed two
affidavits clearly explaining the source from which amount of Rs.1 lakh came to
be deposited in the High Court. However, the High Court made an observation
that the source explained by the appellant for depositing Rs.1 lakh does not
merit acceptance and they have serious doubt about the source from which Rs.1
lakh came to be deposited before the High Court. The High Court, in our
opinion, has entered into an unwarranted discussion in regard to the deposit
made by the appellant and the source from which the said amount of Rs.1 lakh
came to be deposited. When a petition was filed for reviewing the earlier
order, another Division Bench of the High Court committed the same error by
dismissing the Petition and did not permit the appellant to withdraw the sum of
Rs.1 lakh.
We have perused the affidavits filed by the appellant herein. No counter
affidavit was filed by any of the respondents disputing the statement made by
the appellant in regard to the deposit made and the source from which the said
deposit was made. The High Court has unnecessarily gone into an unwarranted
controversy and then rendered the finding by rejecting the request of the
appellant for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1 lakh in spite of the dismissal
of the Writ Petition as having become infructuous. The High Court has also not
ordered the payment of Rs.1 lakh to any person.
Before us, the State is the only contesting respondent. The other respondents
have not appeared before us.
We are of the opinion that the two orders passed by the High Court rejecting
the prayer of the appellant herein is not correct and is liable to be
interfered with. We, therefore, have no hesitation to set aside the orders
passed by the High Court in the Civil Applications. The Registry of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur is directed to refund the
sum of Rs.1 lakh forthwith to the appellant. If the amount is deposited in any
bank, the appellant shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh together with the interest
accrued thereon.
The appeals are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.