The Uttarakhand Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a PIL despite finding that the petitioner has a personal dispute with the private defendant, which has led him to keep going to the Supreme Court.
In the PIL, petitioner Bhagwan Singh Khalsa has asked for the status certificate issued by District Judge Udham Singh Nagar of the 22nd actual perpetrator, including Tehsil Kashipur officials, according to the law.
The petitioner has also asked to revoke the validity of the status certificate of February 22nd, 2018 and to instruct District Judge Udham Singh Nagar to make a decision on the petitioner’s representation on October 26th, 2020.
The petitioner previously submitted a petition (Bhagwan Singh Khalsa vs. District Magistrate and others), which was rejected on November 5th, 2020 on the grounds that the petitioner is not authorized to contest the status report. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a special complaint (Bhagwan Singh Khalsa vs. District Judge / Collector, Udham Singh Nagar and others) to be heard in the Departmental Bank under the direction of the Chief Justice of the High Court. It was rejected as withdrawn on 07/02/2021 at the petitioner’s prayer to withdraw the written request to submit a PIL on the same subject. Although no main decision has been taken, the petitioner has been given the freedom to submit a PIL, therefore this PIL has been submitted.
Justice SK Mishra and Justice NS Dhanik noted that there had been some previous disputes between the petitioner and the private respondent.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer alleged that the case was corruption and that the Tehsil officials gave in to corrupt practices in issuing a status certificate in favor of the defendant.
The Bench asked the petitioner’s attorney the specific question about the findings he made in the PIL about such corruption and the material he referred to in the written application in support of his allegation about the perpetuation of corruption by the officials in consultation with the private interviewee. The petitioner’s lawyer indicated that the petitioner has reflected in paragraphs on such corruption cases. For the sake of clarity, the Court has carefully examined the paragraphs which read as follows.
“18th The contract from Govt ensures that Defendant No. 6 (private Defendant) is successful by receiving and using the aforementioned status certificate. Departments working public utilities through which he has wrested the right of every legitimate, deserving / honest person. Therefore, his status certificate including the service received on this basis can be canceled after a dutiful request. 23. The fact that Defendant No. 6 filed gloves with the authorities of Kashipur Tehsil on the basis of the above illegal act, as such, the persons concerned are punishable. “
After examining the same, the court found that the petitioner nowhere reveals details of the corruption maintained by the officials of the state government or the district administration in consultation with the private respondent. “There is absolutely no material that shows prima facie that corruption has actually taken place.”
“The petitioner’s knowledgeable lawyer relied on a number of documents and agreed that the mathematical calculation made in them was incorrect. In our opinion, this petition should not go into a PIL, ”the bank noted.
Against this background, the court dismissed the PIL, but found that the petitioner had a personal dispute with the private respondent that led him to keep going to the High Court.
The High Court does not find any objections in the PIL either with regard to the effects of the issuing of the status report / certificate in favor of the private defendant on the public.