Thursday, December 16, 2010

the supreme court copy that slams vilasrao deshmukh brazen misuse of power

VJAS submit The Supreme Court Order Copy to Vilasrao Deshmukh

Vidarbha Janandolan Samiti

11,Trisaran ,Khamala ,Nagpur -440 025,,mobile-09422108846

Ref-SC REPORT -NGP- 2010 urgent Dated- 16TH December 2010


Shri Vilasrao Deshmukha(M.P.)

Hon’ble MINISTER ,

Ministry heavy industries

New delhi-110 001

Ref – The Supreme Court rebuking your acts as Maharashtra chief minister for interfering in the enforcement of law to regulate private money lending in the state.

Sub- copy of the supreme court order

Respected sir,

Please find the exact order which has critically remanded you and your act is against constitutional power given to you and to protect fundamental right of common man ,you kindly requested to read the text of this reportable and summit your resignation to prime minister before sacked avoid the humiliation

Here is supreme court order and I quote




(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2614 of 2009)

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Appellant(s)


Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr...Respondent(s)



1. Leave granted.

2. The facts of each case, which come up to this Court

and especially those which are heard at length as

appeals, have a message to convey. The message

conveyed in this case is extremely shocking and it

shocks the conscience of this Court about the manner


in which the Constitutional functionaries behaved in

the State of Maharashtra.

3. A writ petition was filed before Bombay High Court

by Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan - the first

respondent in this appeal. He described himself as

an agriculturist by profession. The allegation in

the writ petition is of illegal money lending

against the second respondent to the extent of

charging 10% interest per month on the money lent.

4. In view of such exorbitant interest being charged

and the illegalities which are alleged be committed

in the recovery of such loan, certain complaints

were filed against the second respondent and in the

writ petition it is stated that as many as 34

complaints were registered against the second

respondent till 28.6.2006.

5. It was also averred in the writ petition that nearly

300 farmers have committed suicide in Vidarbha

region of Maharashtra as victims of such illegal

money lending business and the torture perpetrated

in the recovery of such money. A complaint has been


made that the farmers do not get the benefit of

various packages announced by the Government and the

State machinery is ruthless against the farmers. The

cause of action for filing the writ petition is the

order of Collector in the District of Buldhana

(hereinafter "Collector") directing not to register

any crime against Mr. Gokulchand Sananda, the second

respondent herein, without obtaining clearance from

the District Anti Money Lending Committee and also

without obtaining legal opinion of the District

Government Pleader. It appears that the said order

was passed by the Collector in view of the

instructions given to him by the then Chief Minister

of Maharashtra. It has been alleged in the petition

that there are several complaints and the number of

such complaints is about 50 against Sananda and his

family members who are carrying on money lending

business and the cases cannot be registered against

them in view of the instructions given by the then

Chief Minister.

6. In order to understand the seriousness of the

situation, it will be appropriate in the fitness of

things, to set out the order dated 5.6.2006 of the


Collector, Buldhana to the District Superintendent

of Police, Buldhana:


District Superintendent of Police


Sub: Regarding complaints against illegal

money lending against MLA Dilipkumar

Sananda and his family members.

Ref: instructions given by Hon'ble Chief

Minister in meeting dated 1.6.2006.

On the above mentioned subject, detailed

discussion took place at the residence of

Hon'ble Chief Minister on 1.6.2006. In the

said meeting, MLA Dilipkumar Sananda

complained that deliberately by raising false

allegations, against his family members,

complaints regarding illegal money lending are

being filed and without scrutinizing

truthfulness of the said complaints, offences

are being registered. In respect of said

grievance, Hon'ble Chief Minister has taken

serious note and given order that `if any such

complaint is received then before registration

of offence against MLA Dilipkumar Sananda and

his family members, said matter/complaint be

placed for decision before District Anti-Money

Lending Committee and said Committee should

obtain legal opinion of District Government

Pleader and then only take decision on the

same and take appropriate legal action


You are informed that as per the

instructions of Hon'ble Chief Minister,

matters against Sananda family be handled as

per the provisions of Money Lending Prevention


7. It may be noticed that prior to the aforesaid

discussion which the Collector had at the residence

of the Chief Minister on 1.6.2006 in which meeting


Mr. Dilipkumar Sananda, local MLA was present,

something happened in the Police Station, Khamgaon

City, District Buldhana on 31.5.2006. The said

station diary shows that Mr. Padwal, P.S. to the

Chief Minister telephoned twice to enquire about

"the information regarding the offence" registered

against Sananda and the Section under which the case

has been registered. The second phone call as

recorded in Station Diary shows that Mr. Padwal

directed that no action should be taken as

instructed by the Chief Minster and no offence

should be registered. The text of the station diary

dated 31.5.2006 is set out:

"Station Diary

Police Station Khamgaon City, District Buldhana,

dated 31.5.2006

Station Time Summary Particulars of Entry

Diary of the

Entry Entry


26 13.15 Phone At this time, Mr. Padwal, PS

hrs. from PS to Hon'ble Chief Minister,

to Hon. MS dialed and enquired about

CM the information regarding

offence registered against

Sananda; we informed that

offence is registered at

12.15 hrs.


27 13.25 Phone At this time, Mr. Padwal

hrs. from PS enquired about facts of the

to Hon. offence registered, sections

CM applied; then we informed

them about sections applied

to the said registered

offence, then he told that

henceforth no action be

taken as instructed by

Hon'ble CM and further said

that again no other offences

be registered.


Police Inspector

Khamgaon City Police Station

8. On the writ petition being filed challenging the

aforesaid two communications, namely, the

communication made by the P.S. to the Chief Minister

vide the Station diary entry which is set out above

and the order of Collector on the direction of the

Chief Minister, the High Court in the impugned

judgment allowed the writ petition. The High Court,

inter alia, held that the directions of the Chief

Minister in the telephonic message was proved by the

communication of the Collector dated 5.6.2006 and

the High Court held that such telephonic

communication was made at the behest of Gokulchand

Sananda, the second respondent herein. The High

Court after examining the provisions of the Bombay


Money Lenders Act and also the materials on record

held that the letter dated 5.6.2006 and the

telephonic message recorded in the Station diary

entry exhibit gross abuse of power by the concerned

authority and struck down both the communications.

9. The High Court, however, recorded that on the

complaint filed by the writ petitioner - the first

respondent herein, a chargesheet was filed for

offences under Sections 341, 342, 363, 392, 504 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 32B

of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. The criminal

case is pending. The High Court also observed that

they are not aware how many instances of illegal

money lending do exist. The High Court expressed a

hope that power of the Executive will not be abused

in the manner in which it has been done in this

case. The High Court, quashed the Collector's order

and allowed the writ petition awarding costs of

Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the State Government.

10. However, the State of Maharashtra did not accept the

judgment of the High Court and challenged the same

before this Court by filing a special leave petition

out of which the present appeal arises.


11. From the affidavit which was filed by the Collector

before the High Court, it appears that the

Collector has admitted that in Vidarbha region in

Buldhana District the farmers committed suicide for

various reasons and especially for the loan burden

coupled with the fact that there was irregular rain


12. The Collector admitted in paragraph (3) of the

affidavit that on the complaint of Sananda before

the Chief Minister about cases being registered

against him and his family members without

investigation, the Chief Minister called the

Collector at Mumbai and gave the instructions quoted

above and thereupon the Collector conveyed the

message of the Chief Minister to the Superintendent

of Police, Buldhana. However, the Collector took a

stand that by doing so he has not committed any


13. In the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police,

Buldhana before the High Court, he admits that there

are five cases already registered against the family


members of Sananda under the Bombay Money Lenders

Act and he has given details of those cases in his

affidavit. He also submitted that on 31.5.2006 an

offence came to be registered at police station,

Khamgaon (T) on the complaint made by Shri Rajesh

Shankar Kawadkar under Sections 341, 366, 392 read

with Section 34 IPC and under Section 32(b) and 33

of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. He also admits to

have received instructions from the Collector by the

Collector's order dated 5.6.2006 about the

Collector's meeting with the then Chief Minister of

the Maharashtra and also about the manner in which

the police has to deal with the complaints against

Dilip Kumar Sananda and his family members. He

further averred in his affidavit that by letter

dated 9.6.2006 the Superintendent of Police conveyed

that as per Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code

cognizable complaints are to be registered without

undue delay. However, on receipt of the said letter

the Collector sent his letter dated 14.6.2006

stating therein that under Section 36 of the Cr.P.C.

the State Government can direct a senior police

officer to take cognizance of the offence also.


14. In the course of hearing of this case, this Court by

an order dated 11th February 2010 directed the

learned counsel for the appellant to file an

affidavit on the following points:

"1. The number of cases involving

complaints against respondent No.2 and/or

his family members.

2. The number of cases in which FIR have

been registered against respondent No.2

and/or his family members.

3. The number of cases in which

instructions like the one contained

in letter dated 05.06.2006 of District

Collector, Buldhana were or have been

given by Hon'ble the Chief Minister or

any other functionary or authority of the

State Government."

15. Pursuant thereto an additional affidavit was filed

by one Ambadas, Assistant Police Inspector, posted

to P.S. Khamgaon Gramin, District Buldhana,

Maharashtra to the effect that 34 complaints were

received in different police stations in Buldhana

District against the members of Sananda family. In

the affidavit it was also stated that in seven

complaints chargesheets have been filed and the same

are pending before different Courts below. In

respect of other complaints the complainants have


either settled their disputes or have withdrawn

their complaints. It was also stated that not a

single person including any member of the

complainant's family has committed suicide in view

of dispute over money lending by Sananda family.

This averment was, however, not necessary in terms

of the order dated 11.2.10.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent raised a contention that the so called

District Anti-money Lending Committee is not

statutory. This Court has looked into the resolution

dated 19th October 2005 which purports to constitute

the said committee and this Court finds that the

said committee has not been constituted in exercise

of any statutory power and the said committee

consists of the following persons:

"1. District Collector of the concerned

District - President

2. District Superintendent of Police -


3. District Registrar, Cooperative

Society - Member Secretary."

17. This Court, therefore, finds that the contention of

the learned counsel for the first respondent is


correct and so far as the said committee is

concerned it is not a statutory body.

18. Since, the learned counsel for the first respondent

was arguing on the propriety of directions given by

the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra and also on

the propriety of Chief Minister's Personal Secretary

making telephone calls to the police station and

giving instructions as to how complaints should be

registered against the family of the second

respondent, this Court thought that the then Chief

Minister of Maharashtra, who was initially not a

party to this proceeding, should be impleaded and be

given a chance to make his representation before the

Court. Therefore, this Court by an order dated 31st

March 2010, gave notice to the then Chief Minister

of State of Maharashtra, presently Union Minister,

Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India

and directed service of the entire paper book of

Special Leave Petition on him in order to enable him

to file an affidavit in the context of the letter

dated 5th June 2006 sent by the Collector to the

District Superintendent of the Police, Buldhana.


19. Pursuant to the said notice an affidavit was filed

by Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh, the then Chief Minister

of Maharashtra. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit

the content of the letter of the Collector dated

5.6.06 was not denied. Nor was it denied that on

31.5.06, his Private Secretary made two telephone

calls to the concerned Police Station enquiring

about cases registered against Sananda. However, in

the said affidavit Mr. Deshmukh stated that he never

interfered with any pending investigation against

the family of Sananda and he further stated that

investigation was conducted and the chargesheet was


20. Considering the entire matter in its proper

perspective, this Court is of the view that the way

interference was caused first from the office of the

Chief Minister by his Private Secretary by two

telephone calls on 31.5.2006 and the manner in which

District Collector was summoned by the Chief

Minister on the very next day i.e. 1.6.2006 for

giving instructions to specially treat any

complaints filed against M.L.A. Mr. Dilip Kumar


Sananda and his family has no precedent either in

law or in public administration.

21. The legal position is well settled that on

information being lodged with the police and if the

said information discloses the commission of a

cognizable offence, the police shall record the same

in accordance with the provisions contained under

Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Police

Officer's power to investigate in case of a

cognizable offence without order of the Magistrate

is statutorily recognised under Section 156 of Code.

Thus the police officer in charge of a police

station, on the basis of information received or

otherwise, can start investigation if he has reasons

to suspect the commission of any cognizable offence.

22. This is subject to the provisos (a) and (b) to

Section 157 of the Code which leaves discretion with

the police officer-in-charge of police station to

consider if the information is not of a serious

nature, he may depute a subordinate officer to

investigate and if it appears to the officer-in-


charge that there does not exist sufficient ground,

he shall not investigate.

23. This legal framework is a very vital component of

the Rule of Law in order to ensure prompt

investigation in cognizable cases and to maintain

law and order.

24. Law does not accord any special treatment to any

person in respect of any complaint having been filed

against him when it discloses the commission of any

cognizable offence. In the context of this clear

legal position which, as noted above, is a vital

component of a Rule of Law, the direction of the

then Chief Minister to give a special treatment to

Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, M.L.A and his family about

registering of complaint filed against them is

totally unwarranted in law. Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh as

the Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra is

expected to know that the farmers of the State

specially those in the Vidarbha region are going

through a great deal of suffering and hardship in

the hands of money lenders.


25. It is not in dispute that members of the family of

Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, a Member of Legislative

Assembly, are engaged in money lending business and

various complaints have been lodged against the

members of such family.

26. From the affidavit filed by Shri Ambadas it is clear

that 34 cases were filed against that family in

respect of allegation of money lending.

27. From the communication of the Collector containing

the instructions of the then Chief Minister, Mr.

Vilasrao Deshmukh, it is clear that the Chief

Minister was aware of various complaints being filed

against the said family. Even then he passed an

order for a special treatment in favour of the said

family which is unknown to law. This was obviously

done to protect the Sananda family from the normal

legal process and a special procedure was directed

to be adopted in respect of criminal complaint filed

against them. In other words, the Chief Minister

wanted to give the members of the said family a

special protection which is not available to other

similarly placed persons. It is clear from the


Collector's order dated 5.6.2006 where the Chief

Minister's instructions were quoted that the Chief

Minister was acting solely on political

consideration to screen the family of M.L.A from the

normal process of law.

28. As Judges of this Court, it is our paramount duty to

maintain the Rule of Law and the Constitutional

norms of equal protection.

29. We cannot shut our eyes to the stark realities. From

the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), it is

clear that close to two lakh farmers committed

suicide in India between 1997 and 2008. This is the

largest sustained wave of suicides ever recorded in

human history. Two thirds of the two lakh suicides

took place in five states and those five states are

Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya

Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Even though Maharashtra is

one of the richest state in the country and in its

capital Mumbai twenty five thousand of India's one

lakh dollar millionaires reside, the Vidarbha region

of Maharashtra, in which is situated Buldhana, is

today the worst place in the whole country for


farmers. Professor K. Nagraj of the Madras Institute

of Development Studies who carried on a research in

this area has categorized that Maharashtra could be

called the graveyard of farmers.

30. The position is so pathetic in Vidarbha region that

families are holding funerals and weddings at the

same time and some time on the same day. In a moving

show of solidarity poor villagers are accumulating

their money and labour to conduct marriages and

funerals of their poor neighbours. (See the report

in Hindu dated 22nd May 2006).

31. This being the ground reality, as the Chief Minister

of 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 money lending 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 money lenders. The

instructions of the Chief Minister will certainly

impede their access to legal redress and bring about

a failure of the due process.

32. The aforesaid action of the Chief Minister is

completely contrary to and inconsistent with the

constitutional promise of equality and also the

preambular resolve of social and economic justice.

As a Chief Minister of the State Mr. Deshmukh has

taken a solemn of oath of allegiance to the

Constitution but the directions which he gave are

wholly unconstitutional and seek to subvert the

constitutional norms of equality and social justice.

33. The argument that some of the cases in which

complaints were filed against the family of Sananda,

were investigated and chargesheets were filed, is a

poor consolation and does not justify the issuing of

the wholly unauthorised and unconstitutional

instructions to the Collector. It is not known to us

in how many cases investigation has been totally

scuttled in view of the impugned directions. Records

disclosed in this case show that out of 74 cases


only in seven cases chargesheets were filed and the

rest of the cases were either compromised or

withdrawn. How can poor farmers sustain their

complaint in the face of such directions and how can

the subordinate police officers carry on

investigation ignoring such instructions of the

Chief Minister? Therefore, the instructions of the

Chief Minister have completely subverted the Rule of


34. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for

Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh relied on a decision of this

Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2008 (14) SCC 337.

35. In Lalita Kumari (supra), a Bench of this Court did

not lay down any law. The Bench merely noted that

there is a divergence of views between different

Benches of this court on the issue whether upon

receipt of information disclosing a cognizable

offence, it is imperative for the police officer to

register a case or discretion still lies with him to

make some kind of a preliminary enquiry before

registering the same. The Bench having noted the


divergence of views on the aforesaid question

referred the matter to a larger Bench.

36. We fail to appreciate the relevance of the aforesaid

decision to the disputes involved in the present


37. In Lalita Kumari (supra), there was no instruction

by any Chief Minister or any executive authority to

give a special treatment to any group of persons in

the matter of registration of criminal cases against

them. Therefore, the opinion in Lalita Kumari

(supra) does not in any way justify the instruction

given by Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh.

38. 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. Chief Minister's

instructions are so incongruous and anachronistic,

being in defiance of all logic and reason, that our

conscience is deeply disturbed. We condemn the same

in no uncertain terms.


39. We affirm the order of the High Court and direct

that the instruction of the Chief Minister to the

Collector dated 5.6.06 has no warrant in law and is

unconstitutional and is quashed. 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 farmers. Such costs should be paid

within a period of six weeks from date.





New Delhi

December 14, 2010





(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2614 of 2009)

State of Maharashtra and others ........Appellants


Sarabgdharsingh Shivdassing Chavan .......Respondents

and another


G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. I have gone through the judgment prepared by my esteemed brother

Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. I agree with him that the appeal deserves to

be dismissed with costs but would like to separately record my views on the

crucial issue of ministerial interference in the functioning of the authorities

entrusted with the task of enforcing the laws enacted by the legislature.


2. The Constituent Assembly which comprised of eminent people drawn

from different walks of life debated for more than two years, examined the

constitutions of several countries and prepared the document, which was

adopted as "the Constitution of India". The Preamble to the Constitution, as

it stands after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, reads


"We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to

constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic

Republic and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity and to promote among

them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the

unity and integrity of the Nation."

3. Though each of XXII Parts of the Constitution has its own

significance, the common man is by and large concerned with Parts III, IV

and IV-A, the last having been added by the Forty-second Amendment Act,

1976. Part-III of the Constitution enumerates various fundamental rights

guaranteed to the citizens and even non-citizens. The provisions of Part-IV

contain directive principles of State policy which are fundamental for the


governance of the country. The State has been obligated to enact laws for

improving the lot of the weaker sections of the society and the rural

population so that the goals of social justice and equality can be achieved.

4. By incorporating Part IVA in the Constitution, the Parliament has

emphasized what is obvious, that is, every citizen must do his duty towards

the nation as well as the fellow citizens because unless every one does his

duty, it is not possible to achieve the goals of equality and justice enshrined

in the Preamble. Article 51A enjoins upon every citizen to abide by the

Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the

National Anthem; to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our

national struggle for freedom; to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity

and integrity of India; to promote harmony and the spirit of common

brotherhood amongst all the people irrespective of religion, language, region

etc. and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; to value

and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture; to protect and

improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild

life, and to have compassion for living creatures; to develop the scientific

temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform; to safeguard public

property and to abjure violence; and to strive towards excellence in all


spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly

rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. What has been

incorporated in the form of Part IV-A was implicit in the Preamble, Part III

and Part-IV of the Constitution because fundamental rights of the citizens

can become meaningful only if the State and citizens do their duty to bring

about real equality amongst the people belonging to different segments of

the Society.

5. Part IV-A of the Constitution was enacted with a fond hope that every

citizen will honestly play his role in building of a homogeneous society in

which every Indian will be able to live with dignity without having to bother

about the basics like food, clothing, shelter, education, medical aid and the

nation will constantly march forward and will take its place of pride in the

comity of nations. However, what has happened in last few decades has

given rise to serious apprehensions whether we will be able to achieve the

objectives which were in the mind of the makers of the Constitution. The

gap between 'haves' and 'haves not' of the society which existed even in pre-

independent India has widened to such an extent that it may take many

decades before even a token equality is restored. A small fraction of the

population has evolved a new value system which is totally incompatible


with the values and ideals cherished by the Indian society for centuries

together. They believe in achieving their goals without regard to purity of

the means.

6. Under the Constitution, the executive power of the State vests in the

Governor and is required to be exercised by him either directly or through

officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution [Article

154(1)]. Article 163 mandates that there shall be Council of Ministers with

the Chief Minister as the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise

of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution

required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion. Article

164 lays down that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor

and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of

the Chief Minister, and the Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of

the Governor. Article 164(3) lays down that the Governor shall before a

Minister enters upon his office, administer to him the oath of office and

secrecy according to the form set out in the Third Schedule, in terms of

which, the Minister is required to take oath that he shall discharge his duties

in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour,

affection or ill will. However, the cases involving pervasive misuse of

public office for private gains, which have come to light in last few decades


tend to shake the peoples' confidence and one is constrained to think that

India has freed itself from British colonialism only to come in the grip of a

new class, which tries to rule on the same colonial principles. Some

members of the political class who are entrusted with greater responsibilities

and who take oath to do their duties in accordance with the Constitution and

the law without fear or favour, affection or ill will, have by their acts and

omissions demonstrated that they have no respect for system based on rule

of law.

7. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in C.S. Rowjee v. State of

Andhra Pradesh (1964) 6 SCR 330 is an illustration of the misuse of public

office by the Chief Minister for political gain. The schemes framed by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1939 for nationalization of motor transport in certain areas of Kurnool

District of Andhra Pradesh were challenged by filing writ petitions under

Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court repelled the challenge to

the validity of the schemes and also negatived the argument that the same

were vitiated due to mala fides of the then Chief Minister of the State. This

Court allowed the appeals and quashed the scheme and declared that the

schemes are invalid and cannot be enforced. While examining the issue of

mala fide exercise of power, the Constitution Bench stuck a note of caution


by observing that allegations of malafides and of improper motives on the

part of those in power are frequently made and some times without any

foundation and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize those

allegations with care so as to avoid being in any manner influenced by them

if they are not well founded. The Court then noted that the scheme was

originally framed by the Corporation on the recommendations of

Anantharamakrishnan Committee, but was modified at the asking of the

Chief Minister so that his opponents may be prejudicially affected and

proceeded to observe:

"The first matter which stands out prominently in this

connection is the element of time and the sequence of dates. We

have already pointed out that the Corporation had as late as

March 1962 considered the entire subject and had accepted the

recommendation of the Anantharamakrishnan Committee as to

the order in which the transport in the several districts should be

nationalised and had set these out in their Administration

Report for the three year period 1958 to 1961. It must,

therefore, be taken that every factor which the

Anantharamakrishnan Committee had considered relevant and

material for determining the order of the districts had been

independently investigated, examined and concurred in, before

those recommendations were approved. It means that up to

March-April 1962 a consideration of all the relevant factors had

led the Corporation to a conclusion identical with that of the

Anantharamakrishnan Committee. The next thing that happened

was a conference of the Corporation and its officials with the

Chief Minister on April 19, 1962. The proceedings of the

conference are not on the record nor is there any evidence as to

whether any record was made of what happened at the

conference. But we have the statement of the Chief Minister


made on the floor of the State Assembly in which he gave an

account of what transpired between him and the Corporation

and its officials. We have already extracted the relevant

portions of that speech from which the following points

emerge: (1) that the Chief Minister claimed a right to lay down

rules of policy for the guidance of the Corporation and in fact,

the learned Advocate-General submitted to us that under the

Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Government had a

right to give directions as to policy to the Corporation; (2) that

the policy direction that he gave related to and included the

order in which the districts should be taken up for

nationalisation; and (3) that applying the criteria that the

districts to be nationalised should be contiguous to those in

which nationalised services already existed, Kurnool answered

this test better than Chittoor and he applying the tests he laid

down therefore suggested that instead of Chittoor, Kurnool

should be taken up next. One matter that emerges from this is

that it was as a result of policy decision taken by the Chief

Minister and the direction given to the Corporation that

Kurnool was taken up for nationalisation next after Guntur. It is

also to be noticed that if the direction by the Chief Minister,

was a policy decision, the Corporation was under the law bound

to give effect to (vide Section 34 of the Road Transport

Corporation Act, 1950). We are not here concerned with the

question whether a policy decision contemplated by Section 34

of the Road Transport Act could relate to a matter which under

Section 68-C of the Act is left to the unfettered discretion and

judgment of the Corporation, where that is the State

undertaking, or again whether or not the policy decision has to

be by a formal Government Order in writing for what is

relevant is whether the materials placed before the Court

establish that the Corporation gave effect to it as a direction

which they were expected to and did obey. If the Chief Minister

was impelled by motives of personal ill-will against the Road

Transport Operators in the western part of Kurnool and he gave

the direction to the Corporation to change the order of the

districts as originally planned by them and instead take up

Kurnool first in order to prejudicially affect his political

opponents, and the Corporation carried out his directions it does

not need much argument to show that the resultant scheme


framed by the Corporation would also be vitiated by mala fides

notwithstanding the interposition of the semi-autonomous


...... If in these circumstances the appellants allege that

whatever views the Corporation entertained they were

compelled to or gave effect to the wishes of the Chief Minister,

it could not be said that the same is an unreasonable inference

from facts. It is also somewhat remarkable that within a little

over two weeks from this conference by its resolution of May 4,

1962, the Corporation dropped Nellore altogether, a district

which was contiguous to Guntur and proceeded to take up the

nationalisation of the routes of the western part of the Kurnool

district and were able to find reasons for taking the step. It is

also worthy of note that in the resolution of 4th May, 1962, of

the Corporation only one reason was given for preferring

Kurnool to Nellore, namely, the existence of a depot at Kurnool

because the other reason given, namely, that Kurnool was

contiguous to an area of nationalised transport equally applied

to Nellore and, in fact, this was one of the criteria on the basis

of which the Anantharamakrishnan Committee itself decided

the order of priority among the districts. ......

...... What the Court is concerned with and what is relevant to

the enquiry in the appeals is not whether theoretically or on a

consideration of the arguments for and against, now advanced

the choice of Kurnool as the next district selected for

nationalisation of transport was wise or improper, but a totally

different question whether this choice of Kurnool was made by

the Corporation as required by Section 68-C or, whether this

choice vas in fact and in substance, made by the Chief Minister,

and implemented by him by utilising the machinery of the

Corporation as alleged by the appellants. On the evidence

placed in the case we are satisfied that it was as a result of the

conference of April 19, 1962, and in order to give effect to the

wishes of the Chief Minister expressed there, that the schemes

now impugned were formulated by the Corporation."

(emphasis supplied)


In Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar (1984) 2 SCC 41, this Court

examined the question whether the Chief Minister of the State could direct

extension of the term of the committee of management of Vaishali District

Central Cooperative Bank, Hazipur (for short, `the Bank'). The Bank was

created for the new district, which came into existence with the bifurcation

of the existing district. In exercise of the power conferred upon him by

Bye-law 29, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar nominated a

committee of management of 17 members including the appellant to be the

first Board of Directors for a period of six months i.e., up to December 31,

1981 or till further orders, whichever was earlier. The committee of

management was specifically directed to get the elections of the Board of

Directors held in accordance with the law within six months. The appellant,

who was a political person directly approached the then Chief Minister of

the State and got the term of the first Board of Directors extended from time

to time resulting in postponement of the election of the new board. On

29.10.1981, the then Chief Minister made an endorsement to the Minister

(Cooperation) with a direction that the Registrar should extend the period of

the committee of management for the time being. The Registrar complied

with the directive of the Chief Minister, but ordained the committee of


management to call the general meeting and get the Board of Directors

elected within the extended term. In April 1982, the appellant again got the

term extended through the intervention of the Chief Minister. On 13.4.1983,

the appellant addressed another communication to the Chief Minister for

extension of the term of the nominated Board of Directors for one year. The

Chief Minister obliged him by extending the term for six months and

endorsed the same to the Minister (Cooperation). The then Chief Minister

resigned on 13.8.1983. Thereafter, the Registrar reconstituted the first

Board of Directors in terms of the direction given by the Minister for

Industries. This Court prefaced consideration of the question of interference

by the Chief Minister with the statutory functions of the Registrar under

Bye-law 29 by making the following observations:

"The case illustrates an unfortunate trend which has become too

common these days in the governance of the country."

The Court then referred to the relevant statutory provisions and observed:

"We fail to appreciate the propriety of the Chief Minister

passing orders for extending the term of the first board of

directors. Under the Cabinet system of Government the Chief

Minister occupies a position of pre-eminence and he virtually

carries on the governance of the State. The Chief Minister may

call for any information which is available to the Minister-in-

charge of any department and may issue necessary directions


for carrying on the general administration of the State

Government. Presumably, the Chief Minister dealt with the

question as if it were an executive function of the State

Government and thereby clearly exceeded his powers in

usurping the statutory functions of the Registrar under Bye-Law

29 in extending the term of the first board of directors from

time to time. The executive power of the State vested in the

Governor under Article 154(1) connotes the residual or

governmental functions that remain after the legislative and

judicial functions are taken away. The executive power includes

acts necessary for the carrying on or supervision of the general

administration of the State including both a decision as to

action and the carrying out of the decision. Some of the

functions exercised under "executive powers" may include

powers such as the supervisory jurisdiction of the State

Government under Section 65-A of the Act. The Executive

cannot, however, go against the provisions of the Constitution

or of any law.

Neither the Chief Minister nor the Minister for Co-operation or

Industries had the power to arrogate to himself the statutory

functions of the Registrar under Bye-Law 29. The act of the

then Chief Minister in extending the term of the committee of

management from time to time was not within his power. Such

action was violative of the provisions of the Rules and the bye-

laws framed thereunder. The Act as amended from time to time

was enacted for the purpose of making the co-operative

societies broad-based and democratizing the institution rather

than to allow them to be monopolized by a few persons. The

action of the Chief Minister meant the very negation of the

beneficial measures contemplated by the Act.

In Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (1984) 4 SCC 609, this Court

referred to an earlier decision in Suman Gupta v. State of J. & K. AIR

1983 SC 1235, wherein the Court had observed that there is nothing like


unfettered discretion of the executive authority to nominate the candidate for

admission to medical course under the reciprocal arrangement and observed

that recommendations made at the instance of the Chief Minister de hors the

merit of the candidates who had applied for admission was blatant abuse of

power by the Chief Minister.

In Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1

SCC 227, the question considered by this Court was whether the marks

awarded to the daughter of the appellant, who was at the relevant time the

Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra had been changed at his instance

or to please him. The respondent had challenged the result of the appellant's

daughter of MD examination by alleging that his daughter was shown favour

by increasing her marks. The learned Single Judge, after examining the

record produced before him, came to the conclusion that tampering of the

grade-sheets was done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of respondent Nos.3 and

4. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the prayer for permission

to adduce additional evidence and dismissed the appeal with an observation

that the conclusion arrived at against the appellant should be treated as

merely in the nature of an adverse comment and not a finding of fact. This

Court extensively considered the matter, referred to some of the precedents

and observed:


"There is no question in this case of giving any clean chit to the

appellant in the first appeal before us. It leaves a great deal of

suspicion that tampering was done to please Shri Patil or at his

behest. It is true that there is no direct evidence. It is also true

that there is no evidence to link him up with tampering.

Tampering is established. The relationship is established. The

reluctance to face a public enquiry is also apparent. Apparently

Shri Patil, though holding a public office does not believe that

"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion". The erstwhile Chief

Minister in respect of his conduct did not wish or invite an

enquiry to be conducted by a body nominated by the Chief

Justice of the High Court. The facts disclose a sorry state of

affairs. Attempt was made to pass the daughter of the erstwhile

Chief Minister, who had failed thrice before, by tampering the

record. The person who did it was an employee of the

Corporation. It speaks of a sorry state of affairs and though

there is no distinction between comment and a finding and there

is no legal basis for such a comment, we substitute the

observations made by the aforesaid observations as herein.

This Court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady

decline of public standards or public morals and public morale.

It is necessary to cleanse public life in this country along with

or even before cleaning the physical atmosphere. The pollution

in our values and standards in (sic is) an equally grave menace

as the pollution of the environment. Where such situations cry

out the courts should not and cannot remain mute and dumb."

(emphasis supplied)

In Secretary, J.D.A. v. Daulat Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35, this Court

had the occasion to examine allotment of lands to the respondents by the

Minister and the committee headed by the Minister. Some of the

observations made in that decision are quite relevant in the context of the

present case. Therefore, they are quoted below:


"... The Minister holds public office though he gets

constitutional status and performs functions under constitution,

law executive policy. The acts done and duties performed are

public acts or duties as holding of the public office. Therefore,

he owes certain accountability for the acts done or duties

performed. In a democratic society governed by rule of law,

power is conferred on the holder of the public office or the

concerned authority by the Constitution by virtue of

appointment. The holder of the office, therefore, gets

opportunity to abuse or misuse of the office. The politician who

holds public office must perform public duties with the sense of

purpose, and a sense of direction, under rules or sense of

priorities. The purpose must be genuine in a free democratic

society governed by the rule of law to further socio-economic

democracy. ............... If the Minister, in fact, is responsible

for all the detailed working of his Department, then clearly

ministerial responsibility must cover a wider spectrum than

mere moral responsibility; for no minister can possibly get

acquainted with; all the detailed decisions involved in the

working of his Department.... The so-called public policy

cannot be a camouflage for abuse of the power and trust

entrusted with a public authority or public servant for the

performance of public duties. Misuse implies doing of

something improper. The essence of impropriety is replacement

of a public motive for a private one. When satisfaction sought

in the performance of duties is for mutual personal gain, the

misuse is usually termed as corruption. The holder of a public

office is said to have misused his position when in pursuit of a

private satisfaction, as distinguished from public interest, he has

done something which he ought not to have done. The most

elementary qualification demanded of a Minister is honesty and

incorruptibility. He should not only possess these qualifications

but should also appear to possess the same."

(emphasis supplied)


In R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) 1 All. E.R. 763,

the Court of Appeal considered the question whether the Commissioner of

Police could give instruction to the cadre not to take action against clubs for

violating gaming laws and held that he was not entitled to do so. The facts

of the case show that Albert Raymond Blackburn applied for a mandamus to

the Commissioner of Police of Metropolis requiring him to assist him in the

prosecution of gaming clubs, which contravened the provisions of Betting,

Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963 and in particular to assist him in respect of

the complaint lodged on March 21, 1967 in relation to Golden Nugget Club,

Piccadilly and to reverse or procure the reversal of a policy decision taken

by him or his superiors that the time of the police officers would not be

spent on enforcing the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act,

1963. The Divisional Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal noted that the policy decision contained in

Communication dated April 22, 1966 was a confidential instruction issued to

the senior officers of the metropolitan police whereby they were directed not

to proceed against the clubs for breach of gaming laws unless there was

Complaint of cheating or they become haunts of criminals. As a result of the

said instruction, the big gaming clubs in the metropolis were allowed to


carry on their activities without any police interference. In his opinion, Lord

Denning M.R. made the following observations:

"I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is

of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He

must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected;

and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He

must decide whether or no suspected persons are to be

prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it

is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant of

anyone, save of the law itself. No minister of the Crown can

tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this

place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or

that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The

responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is

answerable to the law and to the law alone."

(emphasis supplied)

In Magill v. Porter (2002) 2 AC 357, the House of Lords upheld the

decision of the District Auditor who had opined that certain Ministers of

Westministers City Council had used their powers to increase the number of

owners/occupiers in marginal wards for the purpose of encouraging them to

vote for the Conservative Party in future elections. The House of Lords

held that although the powers under which the Council could dispose of the

land was very broad, and although, elected politicians were entitled to act in

a manner which would earn the gratitude and support of their electorate, they

could act only to pursue a "public purpose for which the power was


conferred", but the purpose of securing electoral advantage for the

Conservative Party was no such "public purpose".

8. At this stage, I may also refer to the following portion of the preface

to 1964 paper back edition of the book titled "The Modern State" by


"The state has no finality, but human nature is as stable as

human needs, and what human beings need from government -

if we think not of the few, but of men generally, men as social

beings - is the same under all conditions. These are liberties

secured by restraints, justice under law, order that provides

opportunity, the economy of the good life. The modes of

satisfying these needs change with the changing conditions. To

satisfy any need whatever, even the most spiritual, a modicum

of power is necessary, for power is simply the effective control

of means. From the beginning of human history government

has been recognized as the overall holder and regulator of

power, maintaining order by limiting all other expressions of

power and thereby turning permitted powers into rights. In that

concept lay the rudiments of the principles of government. In

every age men have sought to clarify the application of these

principles to the changing times. In every age the abuse of

power by governments has led to disasters and uprisings,

oppressions and vainglorious wars, and sometimes to

experiments in the control of power, seeking to make it

responsible, or more responsible, subject in some manner to the

will of the people, of the majority or those who represented


9. 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 No.1 who alleged that respondent No.2 - Gokulchand Sananda,

his family members and some other money lenders were harassing him and

other farmers and also to stall the action likely to be initiated by the

concerned police authorities under the Bombay Money Lenders 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, issued instructions that complaint against the concerned

M.L.A. and his family members should be first placed before the District

Anti-Money Lending Committee, which should obtain legal opinion of the

District Government Pleader and then only take decision on the same and

take appropriate legal action. The camouflage of sophistry used by Shri

Vilas Rao 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. The District Anti-Money Lending Committee was

constituted by the Government of Maharashtra vide resolution No.

MLA.1204/CR/280/C/7/S dated 19th October, 2009 for protecting the

farmers against unscrupulous money lenders 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 an unwanted interference with the functioning of the authorities

entrusted with the task of enforcing the Act enacted for regulating,

controlling transactions of money lending and protecting unsuspecting

borrowers against oppression and harassment at the hands of unscrupulous

money lenders.


(G.S. Singhvi)

New Delhi,

December 14, 2010


Honorable Vilasrao Deshmukhji who has already written to sack you from union cabinet but your closeness with 10,Janpath but contain of the not only created problem to your political career but have put the question mark on the functioning of the office of the chief minister in Maharashtra .

Please arrange submit your resignation so that other will not misuse the post of the chief Minster as brazen as we did ,this is matter of national shame

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully



Vidarbha Janandolan Samiti,,


No comments: