SACHINDANAND MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TAKING writ petition on its face value filed as a Public Interest Litigation, the only thing on record is a statement reported to have been made on behalf of Hon ble Chief Minister that it was proposed that a certain land possessed at present by a police station would be transferred to Patna Saheb otherwise also known as Harmandir, the birth place of Guru Govind Singh.

(2.) THE statement, apparently, was published in the press on 4 April, 1999 and became an excuse for the present writ petition. The newspaper reports for whatever they are worth, became the basis of submissions made in the writ petition. Thus, it is clear that what is stated in the writ petition are reports published in the newspapers. The contention on the petition, made rather strenuously, is that respondent no. 2 Smt. Rabri Devi wife of Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, Chief Minister, Bihar, 1 Anne Marg, Town & District Patna has not filed a counter affidavit and this be taken as a circumstance against her and the court notice this for due consideration. A half hearted suggestion was made that the Chief Minister be summoned and an adverse presumption be drawn, as she has not filed a counter affidavit and what she has stated to the media be attributed as her statement. The Court cannot summon the Chief Minister at the Bar of this Court, nor any Hon ble Minister, unless any one of them has interfered with pending proceedings which are not the circumstances in this case. Nor is there any proceeding for perjury arising out of a case at the High Court. At best or at its worst whatever may have been reported in the newspaper may at best be attributed that such a statement was published. The presumption cannot go beyond this. Clearly, on record there is no executive order that the Chief Minister had directed the transfer of land from the Police Station i.e. Chowk Thana to the management committee of Patna Saheb. Thus, this aspect need not be dwelt upon more than noticed by the Court. The Chief Minister is answerable to the legislature first. The petitioners may, if their politics advises them raise the issue in the legislature.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit it is contended that an exercise was under contemplation and that though the matter in context, may be under consideration yet no decision has been taken. Between these two circumstances of a declaration made by the Chief Minister and the aspect being considered within the Government and no executive order having been taken out as of date, the news report excite the situation. There is no order on which the High Court may certify an action as correct or incorrect or legal or illegal.