- (1.) This is a Review Petition in Writ Petition No. 26 of 1995 which was filed by Mr. H.D. Shourie for the following reliefs:--- "(i) Pass an appropriate writ, order or orders directing the respondents 1 to 3 to specifically declare as to when the Union of India will now bring before the Parliament an appropriately drafted Bill for enactment of legislation for the establishment of the institution of Lokpal, or a suitable alternative system of the nature of Ombudsman which is operating in a number of other countries, for checking and controlling corruption in public offices, inter alia, at the political and bureaucratic levels, and whether in the enactment of such legislation they will take into consideration the suggestions that have emanated from the Colloquium recently organised under the auspices of Indian Institute of Public Administration with the participation of foreign and Indian experts for examining various aspects of the matter relating to establishment of Ombudsman institution in this country; (ii) Pass an appropriate writ, order or orders directing that the institutions and organisations of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Chief Vigilance Commissioner, and the Central Bureau of Investigation should indicate to the Hon'ble Court the specific steps which they will take for effectively overcoming any inadequacies and weaknesses in the operations of these important institutions which presently hamper effective and efficacious check on prevalence of corrupt practices in the country and to curb corruption at all political and bureaucratic levels; (iii) Pass an appropriate writ, order or orders appointing a Commission or Commissioner to urgently undertake comprehensive study of the present inadequacies in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for making specific recommendations to strengthen this enactment for achieving the objective of curbing and checking corruption at the political and bureaucratic levels in the country. (iv) Pass an appropriate writ, order or orders directing the State Governments Respondents to indicate to the Hon'ble Court as to when they propose implementing the specific suggestions which have been made for strengthening and improvement of the functioning of the system of Lokayukta, including inter alia, the following: (a) To ensure expeditious establishment of the institution of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta in every State; (b) To achieve uniformity in the provisions of various Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Acts; and (c) To confer Constitutional status on the institution of Lokayukta."
(2.) The petition was taken up by this Court on 10.2.95 when the following Order was passed:- "After hearing Mr. Shourie, appearing in person, we give him liberty to amend the petition by making broad base on the subject of curbing corruption in the country. To come up on 24-2-95." On 10-5-95, the following Order was passed:- "We request the Supreme Court Legal Aid Society to depute a Counsel to assist us in this case along with Mr. Shourie, Advocate. The Legal Aid Society shall also serve the unserved respondents by depositing the necessary process fee and other expenses. To be listed on 11th August, 1995. All affidavits and counter affidavits may be tendered in the Registry." On 11-8-95, the Court passed the following Order:- "Mr. Shourie, the petitioner appearing in-person, states that it is of utmost importance to have a Lok Pal to curb corruption in the country. Mr. Gupta, learned Solicitor General states that efforts have been made more than once to have consensus regarding the terms and conditions of the proposed bill. According to him efforts are still being made. It is a matter which concerns the Parliament and the Court cannot do anything substantial in this matter. Short of that, learned Solicitor General states that he would apply his mind to the various aspects raised in this petition and make some useful suggestions. Mr. Muralidhar, appearing as amicus curiae to assist us, also states that he would examine the various reports submitted by Comptroller and Auditor General from time to time and in consultation with the Solicitor General and Mr. Shourie make some suggestions for the consideration of this Court. Mr. Shourie has invited our attention to a news item in the front page of Indian Express of Friday August 11, 1995 under the caption "In Satish Sharma's reign, petrol and patronage flow together". It is not possible for us to take any action on the press report. On our suggestion the Solicitor General takes notice of this news item and states that he would have the matter examined in the Ministry concerned and shall file an affidavit of the Secretary concerned in the Ministry reacting to this news item. He may file the affidavit within the period of eight weeks. The Writ Petition is adjourned to 13-10-95."
(3.) The petition, thus, was diverted towards Captain Satish Sharma who was, at that time, Minister of State for Petroleum and Natural Gas in the Central Government. By Judgment dated September 25, 1996, ("Common Cause", A Registered Society v.Union of India)1, 1996(4) Bom.C.R. 519 : 1996(1) S.C.C. 530, all the 15 petrol outlets, allotted by the Minister to various persons out of his discretionary quota, were cancelled and the following directions were issued to Captain Satish Sharma (petitioner):- "Capt. Satish Sharma shall show-cause within two weeks why a direction be not issued to the appropriate police authority to register a case and initiate prosecution against him for criminal breach of trust or any other offence under law. He shall further show-cause within the said period why he should not, in addition, be made liable to pay damages for his mala fide action in allotting petrol pumps to the above mentioned fifteen persons." The petitioner submitted the reply to the show-cause notice which was disposed of by judgment dated November 4, 1996, ("Common Cause", A Registered Society v.Union of India)2, 1997(1) Bom.C.R. 636 : 1996(6) S.C.C. 593. The following operative Order was passed :- "We are of the view that the legal position that exemplary damages can be awarded in a case where the action of a public servant is oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional in unexceptionable. The question for consideration, however, is whether the action of Capt. Satish Sharma makes him liable to pay exemplary, damages. In view of the findings of this Court in Common Cause case-quoted above the answer has to be in the affirmative. Satish Sharma's actions were wholly arbitrary, mala fide and unconstitutional. This Court has given clear findings to this effect in the Common Cause case. We, therefore, hold that Capt. Satish Sharma is liable to pay exemplary damages. We have heard Mr. H.N. Salve on the question of quantum. Mr. Salve has vehemently contended that Capt. Sharma was a part of the system which was operating before his joining as a Minister. According to him the types of wrongs were being committed even earlier the assumption that the Minister's discretion was to be exercised on his subjective satisfaction. He has further contended that since the concept of absolute liability of public servants for misfeasance has been of recent origin in this country even while awarding exemplary damages leniency should be shown. There is some plausibility in the contentions raised by Mr. Salve. After examining all the facts and circumstances of this case and giving thoughtful consideration to this aspect, we direct Capt. Satish Sharma to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lacs as exemplary damages to the Government Exchequer. Since the property with which Capt. Sharma was dealing was public property, the Government which is "by the people" has to be compensated. We further direct Capt. Sharma to deposit the amount with the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India within nine months from today. The amount if not paid, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue." The present Review Petition relates to these two judgments.;