Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusSARANGDHAR SINGH SHIVDAS SINGH CHAVAN AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 877
- Decided
- 14 December 2010
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The Chief Minister’s instructions to give special treatment to the Sananda family and to withhold registration of cognizable offences are ultra vires, unconstitutional, and must be set aside.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Bombay High Court order that quashed a Collector’s directive, issued on the instructions of the Chief Minister, which required police to obtain clearance from a District Anti‑Money Lending Committee and a legal opinion before registering any FIR against Gokulchand Sananda and his family for alleged illegal money‑lending. The Supreme Court held that such instructions amounted to unlawful ministerial interference, violated the constitutional guarantees of equality and the rule of law, and were ultra vires of the Bombay Money Lenders Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court reiterated that police must register cognizable offences under Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the CrPC without political direction and that no special treatment can be accorded to any individual. Consequently, the Chief Minister’s instructions were declared unconstitutional and set aside, the appeal was dismissed, and the State was ordered to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.
Issues considered
- The legality of the Chief Minister’s instructions to the Collector to condition registration of FIRs on clearance from a District Anti‑Money Lending Committee and a government pleader.
- Whether such ministerial interference violates the constitutional principles of equality and the rule of law.
- Whether police are statutorily obliged under CrPC §§154, 156, 157 to register cognizable offences irrespective of political directives.
- The statutory authority, if any, of the District Anti‑Money Lending Committee to vet complaints under the Bombay Money Lenders Act.
- The propriety of the High Court’s quashing of the Collector’s order and the maintainability of the State’s appeal.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946s. 32B, s. 33
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156, s. 157, s. 163, s. 164, s. 36
- Constitution of Indias. Article 154, s. Article 163, s. Article 164, s. Article 51A
Subjects
ministerial interferenceabuse of powerequalityrule of lawcriminal proceduremoney lendingfarmer suicidesconstitutional lawdirective principlespolice investigationcognizable offence
Judgment
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1145
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. A
v.
SARANGDHAR SINGH SHIVDAS SINGH CHAVAN AND
ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2374 of 2010)
DECEMBER 14, 2010 B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Administrative law: Public administration - Abuse of
power - Complaints filed against the second respondent and c
his family members on the ground that they were indulging
in illegal money lending and charging exorbitant interest from
poor farmers - Order by Collector that as per the instructions
of the Chief Minister, the Superintendent of Police would not
register any crime against the second respondent unless D
clearance is obtained from the District Anti Money Lending
Committee and legal opinion of the District Government
Pleader and matters would be handled as per the provisions
of Money Lending Prevention Act - Held: The instructions of
the Chief Minister were completely contrary to and inconsistent E
with the constitutional promise of equality and a/so the
preambular resolve of social and economic justice -
Interference by the Chief Minister to specially treat any
complaints has no precedent either in law or in public
administration - In the face of such directions, it is
inconceivable that the poor farmers can sustain their F
complaint and the subordinate police officers can carry on
investigation ignoring such instructions of the Chief Minister
- Therefore, the instructions of the Chief Minister completely
subverted the rule of law - Chief Minister's instructions were
incongruous and anachronistic, being in defiance of all logic G
and reason - This Court condemned the same in no
uncertain terms - The instruction of the Chief Minister to the
Collector has no warrant in law and is unconstitutional and is
quashed - The State is directed to pay costs of Rs.10 lakhs
1145 H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010115 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A in favour of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority
- The fund would be earmarked to help the cases of poor
farmers - Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
B ss. 154, 156, 157 - Investigation - Power of police to
investigate cognizable offence - Scope of, and if special
treatment to any person .in respect of complaint disclosing the
commission of any cognizable offence, permissible - Held:
Law does not accord special treatment to any person in
C respect of complaint against him when it discloses the
commission of any cognizable offence - In the instant case,
the direction of the Chief Minister to give a special treatment
to an MLA and his family before registering complaint against
them for indulging in illegal money lending was totally
D unwarranted in law.
ss.154(1), 163, 164(3) - Ministerial interference in the
functioning of the authorities entrusted with the task of
enforcing the laws enacted by the legislature - Cases
E involving pervasive misuse of public office for private gains
have come to light in last few decades which tend to shake
the peoples' confidence - Some members of the political
class who are entrusted with greater responsibilities and who
take oath to do their duties in accontance with the Constitution
F 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.
Constitution of India, 1950: Part /VA - Every citizen must
do his duty towards the nation as well as the fellow citizens -
G 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 ta different segments
of the Society - Part IV-A was enacted with a fond hope that
every citizen will honestly play his role in building of a
H homogeneous society in which every Indian will be able to live
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 114 7
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN
with dignity without having to bother about the basics like food, A
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, in last few decades, a small
fraction of the population has evolved a new value system
which is totally incompatible with the values and ideals B
cherished by the Indian society for centuries together.
Money lending: Illegal money lending business -
Suicides by farmers - Nearly 300 farmers committed suicide
in Vidarbha region in Maharashtra as victims of illegal money C
lending business and the torture perpetrated in the recovery
of such money - Court cannot shut eyes to the stark realities.
The first respondent was an agriculturist. The
'Sananda family' of which the second respondent was a
member was engaged in the money lending business. D
Several complaints were filed against the second
respondent and his family members alleging that they
were indulging in illegal money lending and charging
exorbitant interest from the farmers.
E
The first respondent filed a writ petition against the
second respondent. It was averred in the writ petition that
nearly 300 farmers committed suicide in Vidarbha region
in Maharashtra as victims of illegal money lending
business and the torture perpetrated in the recovery of
such money. It was also averred that on 31.5.2006, the F
Private Secretary to the then Chief Minister (Mr. V.
Deshmukh) telephoned twice in the Potice<station to
enquire about the information regarding the offence
·registered against the second respondent and the
provision under which the case was registered. The G
second phone call as recorded in the Station Diary
showed that the P.S. to the Chief Minister directed that
no action should be taken as instructed by the Chief
Minister and no offence should be registered. On 1.6.2006,
a meeting was held at the residence of Mr. V. Deshmukh. H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Mr. Dilipkumar Sananda, the local MLA and a member of
Sananda family was also present in the meeting. In the
said meeting, the said MLA complained that false
complaints against his family members, complaints
regarding illegal money lending were filed and without
B scrutinity of the truthfulness of the said complaints,
offences were registered. Order dated 5.6.2006 was
passed by the Collector that as instructed by the Chief
Minister (Mr. V. Deshmukh), police would not register any
crime against the second respondent without obtaining
c clearance from the District Anti Money Lending
Committee and also without legal opinion of the District
Government Pleader and matters against the Sananda
family would be handled as per the provisions of Money
Lending Prevention Act.
D The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that
the order dated 5.6.2006 and the telephonic message
recorded on 31.5.2006 exhibited gross abuse of power by
the concerned authority and struck down both the
communications. The State filed the instant appeal.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
Per Ganguly, J:
F
1.1. 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
G with the provisions contained under Section 154, Cr.P.C.
Police Officer's power to investigate in case of a
cognizable offence without order of the Magistrate is
statutorily recognized under Section 156, Cr.P.C. Thus,
the police officer in charge of a police station, on the basis
H of information received or otherwise, can start
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1149
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN
investigation, if he has reasons to suspect the A
commission of any cognizable offence. This is subject to
the provisos (a) and (b) to Section 157, Cr.P.C. 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 B
investigate and if it appears to the officer-in-charge that
there does not exist sufficient ground, he shall not
investigate. 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 c
order. 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, the direction of the then Chief Minister to give
0
a special treatment to Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, M.L.A
and his family about registering of complaint filed against
them was totally unwarranted in law. [Paras 21 to 24]
[1165-A-H; 1166-A-B]
1.2. From the communication of the Collector E
containing the instructions of the then Chief Minister, Mr.
V. 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 F
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. It is clear from the Collector's order
dated 5.6.2006 where the Chief Minister's instructions G
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. [Para 27) [1116-E-H]
2.1. The court cannot shut eyes to the stark realities. H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
8 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
C 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. The position is so pathetic in
D 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. This
E 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. V. Deshmukh certainly
acted beyond all legal norms by giving the impugned
directions to the Collector to protect members of a
F 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
G of law and order to register their complaints against
torture and atrocities by the money lenders. T.he
instructions of the Chief Minister will certainly impede
their access to legal redress and bring about a failure of
the due proces·s. The said action of the Chief Minister is
H completely contrary to and inconsistent with the
STATE OF MAHA~ASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1151
SHIVDASSINGH Cr.IAVAN
constitutional proril'ise of equality and also the A
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 were wholly unconstitutional
and sought to subvert the constitutional norms of equality B
and social justice. [Paras 29 to 32] [1167-B-H; 1168-A-C]
Report in Hindu dated 22nd May 2006 - r~ferred to.
2.2. The fact that some of the cases in which
pomplaints were filed against the family of Sananda, were C
investigated and chargesheets were filed cannot justify
the issuing of the wholly unauthorised and
unconstit4tional instructions to the Collector. It is not
known as to how many cases investigation had been
totally s·cuttled in view of the impugned directions. D
; Records disclosed in the instant case that out of 74
cases only in 7 cases chargesheets were filed and the
rest of the cases were either compromised or withdrawn.
l'n the face of such directions, it is inconc~ivable that the
poor farmers can sustain their complaint and the E
subordinate police officers can carry on investigation
ignoring such instructions of the Chief Minister.
Therefore, the instructions of the Chief Minister have
completely subverted the Rule of Law. This Court noted
extreme anguish that such an instruction came from the F
.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 were incongruous and anachronistic, being
in defiance of all logic and reason. This Court condemned G
the same in no uncertain terms. The order of the High
Court is affirmed. The instruction of the Chief Minister to
the Collector dated 5.6.06 has no warrant in law and is
unconstitutional and is quashed. The appellant is
H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A directed to pay costs of Rupees Ten Lakhs in favour of
the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. This
fund shall be earmarked by the Authority to help the cases
of poor farmers. [Paras 33, 38, 39] [1168-D-F; 1169-D-F]
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
B 2008 (14) SCC 337 - distinguished.
Per Singhvi J: (supplementing)
1.1. Though each of XXll Parts of the Constitution has
c its own significance, the common man is by and large
concerned with Parts Ill, IV and IV-A, the last having been
added by the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976. Part-
111 of the Constitution enumerates various fundamental
rights guaranteed to the citizens and even non-citizens.
The provisions of Part-IV contain directive principles of
0
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. By
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1153
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN
of our composite culture; to protect and improve the A
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 B
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 Ill and Part-
IV of the Constitution 1 because fundamental rights of the c
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. Part IV-A of th~ Constitution was enacted
with a fond hope that every citizen will honestly pl~,,his 0
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 E
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 F
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 G
in achieving their goals without regard to purity of the
means. [Paras 3, 4, 5) [1170-F-H; 1171-A-H; 1172-A-B]
1.2. Under the Constitution, the executive power of
the State vests in the Governor and is required to be H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
8 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
C 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
0 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
E 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
F 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.
[Para 6) [1172-C-H]
G
C.S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1964) 6 SCR
330; Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar (1984) 2 SCC 41;
Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (1984) 4 SCC 609; Suman
Gupta v. State of J. & K. AIR 1983 SC 1235; Shivajirao
H Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1155
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN
227; Secretary, JD.A. v. Dau/at Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35 - A
relied on.
R V. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) 1 All. E.R.
763; Magill v. Porter (2002) 2 AC 357 - referred to.
3. The facts of the instant case showed that with a B
view to frustrate the complaint made by the first
respondent, the second respondent, his family members
and some other money lenders were harassing him and
other farmers and also stalling the action likely to be
initiated by the concerned police authorities under the C
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 D
registered against Sananda. Thereafter, the Chief Minister1
without verifying the truthfulness or otherwise of the
assertion of Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda t!lat false
complaints were being lodged against his family
members, issued instructions that complaint against the •. E
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 police take decision
on the same and take appropriate legal action. The F
camouflage of sophistry used by the then Chief Minister
_ in the instructions given by him and the affidavit filed ·
before this Court was 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 G
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
H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A so. The District Anti-Money Lending Committee was
constituted by the Government of Maharashtra by
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
8 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 cif the farmers. The instructions given ·by
the Chief Mir;1ster to District Collector, Buldhana were ex
C 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
0
lending and protecting unsuspecting borrowers against
oppression and harassment at the hands of
unscrupulous money lenders. [Para 9) [1184-B-H; 1185-
A-C]
E Case Law Reference:
2008 (14) sec 337 distinguished Paras 34,
35, 37
(1964) 6 SCR 330 relied on Para 7
F
(1984) 2 sec 41 relied on Para 7
(1984) 4 sec 609 relied on Para 7
AIR 1983 SC 1235 relied on Para 7
G (1987) 1 sec 221 relied on Para 7
(1997) 1 sec 35 relied on Para 7
(1968) 1 All. E.R. 763 relied on Para 7
H (2002) 2 AC 357 relied on Para 7
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1157
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No. 2374 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Nagpur in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 330 of 2006.
B
U.U. Lalit, Sanjay Kharde, Shankar Chillarge (for Asha
Gopalan Nair) for the Appellants. .
Dr. Abhishek SinJhvi, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Naveen
Kumar, (for Vilas Rao Deshmukh), A.P. Mayee, Chorudatta c
Mahendrakar, Sachin Sharma, Manish Pitale, Wasi Haider (for
Chander Shekhar Ashri) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted. D
2. The fact~ 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 E
about the manner in which the Constitutional functionaries
behaved in the State of Maharashtra.
3. Awrit petition was filed before Bombay High Court by
Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan - the first respondent
in this appeal. He described himself as an agriculturist by F
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 · G
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. H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
0
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.
E
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:
F
'To
District Superintendent of Police
Buldhana
Sub: Regarding complaints against illegal money lending
G
against MLA Dilipkumar Sananda and his family
members.
Ref: instructions given by Hon'ble Chief Minister in
meeting dated 1.6.2006.
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR 91NGH 1159
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
On the above mentioned subject, detailed A
discussion tobk 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 B
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 c
members, said matter/complaint be placed for decisio.n
before District Anti-Money Lending Committee and siid
Committee should obtain legal opinion of District
Government Pleader and then only take decision on the
same and take appropriate legal action accordingly'.
D
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 Act."
7. It may be noticed that prior to the aforesaid discussion E
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 F
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 G
and no offence should be registered. The text of the station diary
dated 31.5.2006 is set out:
H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A "Station Diary
Police Station Khamgaon City, District Buldhana, dated
31.5.2006
Station Time Summary Particulars of Entry ---1
B Diary of the
Entry Entry
No.
26 13.15 Phone At this time, Mr. Padwal,
hrs. from PS to Hon'ble Chief
c PS to Minister, MS dialed and
Hon. enquired about the infor-
CM mation regarding offence
registered against
Sananda; we informed
D that offence is registered
at 12.15 hrs.
27 13.15 Phone At this time, Mr. Padwal
hrs. from enquired about facts of
PS to the offence registered,
E Hon. sections applied; then we
CM informed them about
sections applied to the
said registered offence,
then he told that
F henceforth no action be
taken as instructed by
Hon'ble CM and further
said that again no other
offences be registered.
~
G
Sd/-
Police Inspector
Khamgaon City Police Station
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1161
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
8. On the writ petition being filed challenging the aforesaid A
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 B
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 seco.nd
respondent herein. The High Court after examining the c
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.
D
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 E
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 F
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 G
appeal arises.
11. From the affidavit which was filed by the Collector
before the High Court, it appears that the Collector has admitted
H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
fall.
B 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
C Minister to the Superintendent of Police, Buldhana. However,
the Collector took a stand that by doing so he has not committed
any illegality.
13. In the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police,
D 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 subn;iitted
that on 31.5.2006 an offence came to be registered at police
E 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
M6ney Lenders Act. He also admits to have received
instructions from the Collector by the Collector's order dated
F 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
G 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.
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1163
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
14. In the course of hearing of this case, this Court by an A
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.
B
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 D
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 E
different Courts below. In respect of other complaints the
complainants have either settled their disputes or havo
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 F
Sananda family. This averment was, however, not necessary
in terms of the order dated 11.2.10.
16. This Court has looked into the resolution dated 19th
October 2005 which purports to constitute the said committee G
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
H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 2. District Superintendent of Police - Member
3. District Registrar, Cooperative Society - Member
Secretary."
17. This Court, therefore, finds that the contention of the
B 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
c Minister of Maharashtra and also on the propriety of Chief
Minister's Personal Secretary making teler.hone 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
D 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
E 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.
F 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
G 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 filed.
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1165
· SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
20. Considering the entire matter in its proper perspective, A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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.
., E
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 F
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.
G
. 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 iegal position which, as noted
H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1167
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
protection. A
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 8
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 Pra.desh
and Chhattisgarh. Even though Maharashtra is one of the
richest state in the country and in its capital Mumbai twenty five C
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. D
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 E
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
F
high constitutional functionary, Mr. Vilasra:oDeshmukh 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 G
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
H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 a"::l social justice.
C 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
D 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
E 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 Law.
34. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.
F 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) sec 337.
35. In Lalita Kumari (supra), a Bench of this Court did not
G 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
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH 1169
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN
kind of a preliminary enquiry befqre registering the same. The A
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 case.
B
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 9gainst them. Therefore, the opinion in Lalita
Kumari (supra) does not in any way justify the instruction given C
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
0
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.
E
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 F
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.
G
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 ori the crucial issue of ministerial interference in the
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
8
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, ~ 976, reads
thus:
C "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;
D 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
E
unity and integrity of the Nation."
3. Though each of XXll Parts of the Constitution has its
own significance, the common man is by and large concerned
with Parts 111, IV and IV-A, the last having been added by the
F Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976. Part-Ill 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
G 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
H Parliament has emphasized what is obvious, that is, every
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH! 171
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
citizen must do his duty towards the nation as well as the fellow A
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 s
the noble ideals whic_h 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 c
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
0
~ 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. Y'Jhat has been incorporated in
the form of Part IV-A was implicit in the Preamble, Part Ill and
Part-IV of the Constitution because fundamental rights of the E
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 F
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 G
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 H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH1173
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
7. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in C. S. Rowjee A
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 B
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 allowedc
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 D
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 E
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 F
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
Anantharamal<rishnan Committee as to the order in which G
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 H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2010) 15 (ADDL.)S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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)
D
that the Chief Minister claimed a right to lay dovm rules of
policy for the guidance of the Corporation and in fact, the
learned Advocate-General submitted to us th,:it under the
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Government
had a right to give directions as to policy to the Corporation;
E (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,
F Kurnool answered this test better than Chittoor and h.e
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
G 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,
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH1175
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
1950). We are not here concerned with the question A
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 8
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 C
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 D
need much argument to show that the resultant scheme
framed by the Corporation would also be vitiated by ma/a
fides notwithstanding the interposition of the semi-
autonomous Corporation.
E
...... 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 F
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 G
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 H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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 ...... .
B
...... 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 oftransport was
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH1177
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
was specifically directed to get the elections of the Board of A
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, B
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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
become too common these days in the governance of the
country."
The Court then referred to the relevant statutory provisions
and observed:
G
"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
H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R.
A 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
B 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 urider Bye-Law 29 in extending
the term of the first board of directors from time to time.
c 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 adminisiration of the State including both a
D
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
E
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
F 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
G rif 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
cortemplated by the Act.
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH1179
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
In Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (1984) 4 SCC 609, A
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 B
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. C
(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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E should not and cannot remain mute and dumb."
(emphasis supplied)
In Secretary, J.D.A. v. Dau/at Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35,
this Court had the occasion to examine allotment of lands to
F the respondents by the Minister and the committee headed by
1
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:
G " ... 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
H acts done or duties performed. In a democratic society
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH181
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
governed by rule of law, power is conferred on the holder A
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 B
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, c
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 D
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 E
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 F
honesty and incorruptibility. He should not only possess
these qualifications but should also appear to possess the
same."
(emphasis supplied) G
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 H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 takeri by him or his superiors that the time
of the police officers would not be spent on enforcing the
c 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
D 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 crimina.s. 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H law and to the law alone."
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH1183
SHIVOASSINGH CHAVAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(emphasis supplied) A
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 B
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 C
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 O
the preface to 1964 paper back edition of the book titled "The
Modern State" by Maciver:
"The state has no finality, but human nature is as stable
as human needs, and what human beings need from E
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 F
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 G
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 H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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 them."
8 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H No. MLA.1204/CR/280/C/7/S dated 19th October, 2009 for
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARANGDHAR SINGH11 ss
SHIVDASSINGH CHAVAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
protecting the farmers against unscrupulous money lenders and A
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 B
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 !tie
functioning of the authorities entrusted with the task of enforcing
the Act enacted for regulating, controlling transactions of money c
lending and protecting unsuspe~ting borrowers against
oppression and harassment at the hands of unscrupulous
money lenders.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "ministerial interference"Sign in to search