Citizens For Justice And Peace vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

"REPORTABLE"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 219 OF 2006

Citizens for Justice and Peace .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Gujarat & Others .... Respondents

JUDGMENT

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has

been filed basically challenging the appointment and continuation of

respondent No. 3 Shri P.C. Pandey to the post of Director General of

Police, State of Gujarat. The other prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct

respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat to take disciplinary action including

prosecuting respondent No. 3 for having failed in his duties during the

Gujarat carnage of 2002.

2. Notice was issued by this Court on 11.5.2006 to the respondents,

whereupon, the State of Gujarat has come up with a Counter Affidavit,

denying most of the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. This Writ

Petition was filed on 1.5.2006 and notice thereof was issued on 11.5.2006 2

and ever since then, number of interim orders in nature of directions came

to be passed.

3. Shortly stated, the petitioner claiming itself to be an organization,

which was started as a response to the alleged carnage which took place

in Gujarat from 27.2.2002 onwards with the main objective to bridge the

gap between the various religious communities, as also to ensure that

justice is done to those who are the victims of communalism. It is claimed

that it had set up a Citizens Tribunal to go into the causes and extent of

communal violence in Gujarat headed by two retired Hon'ble Judges of this

Court. The petitioner has filed the Report of the said Tribunal, which

published in two volumes. The other contentions which are raised are that

the respondent No. 3 Shri P.C. Pandey was the Commissioner of Police,

Ahmedabad during the period when the communal disturbances rocked the

State of Gujarat. It is claimed that more than 700 persons died and

number of irregularities were committed by Shri Pandey such as not

supplying the reinforcements and serious derelictions of his duties.

Number of other allegations have been made that Shri Pandey was sent on

deputation to CBI, which appointment was challenged before this Court by

the petitioner by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 147 of 2004, wherein, the Union

of India had given an undertaking that he would not handle any cases

relating to Gujarat riots of 2002. He was accordingly not allowed to handle

those cases. It has also come in the allegations that on account of the

directions issued by this Court, about 2000 cases which were hastily closed

by the then Gujarat Government, were directed to be re-opened and a 3

fresh scrutiny into those cases was also ordered. It was expresses that if

Shri Pandey continued in the highest post of Director General of Police,

those cases would be adversely affected and the guilty would be shielded

and that would be patent denial of justice.

4. In its Counter Affidavit, the State of Gujarat opposed most of the

claims and pointed out that the claim that the appointment of respondent

No. 3 as a Director General of Police would be detrimental to the cause of

justice, is not correct. It is pointed out that the Review Committee

constituted under the directions of this Court earlier vide order dated

17.8.2004 was required to look into all 2020 riot cases, wherein, the

investigating agency had filed "A" Summary. It is further pointed out that

Shri Pandey was not in any manner connected with the Review Committee

nor was he in a position to influence the same. It is further pointed out that

up to the quarter ending 30th April, 2006, as many as 1989 cases out of the

aforesaid 2020 cases had already been reviewed in respect of which

periodic reports were filed by the Committee before this Court. It is claimed

that in all, hardly 30 "A" summary cases had remained and it was,

therefore, argued before us by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the State of Gujarat that there was no point in now taking exception to the

appointment and continuation of the third respondent as the Director

General of Police. Learned Counsel also informed us during the debate

that even those 30 "A" summary cases have already been decided upon

and, therefore, there is no scope for those cases being affected by Shri 4

Pandey in his continuation as the Director General of Police. It is further

submitted at the Bar that Shri Pandey is going to retire on 31st March, 2009

and under the circumstances, this Writ Petition itself has become

redundant.

5. Considering the overall situation, firstly, the fact that almost all the

cases in the "A" summary, which were recommenced by the investigating

agency, have already been dealt with by the Scrutiny Committee and

secondly that Shri Pandey is going to retire on 31st March, 2009, we do not

propose to continue with this Writ Petition. In fact, this Writ Petition has

itself become redundant as the continuation of Shri Pandey as the DGP is

of no consequence insofar as the apprehension expressed by the petitioner

in the Writ Petition is concerned.

6. Shri P.P. Rao urged that if Shri Pandey continues to that post, he

may be in a position to pressurize the Courts, where, in pursuance of the

recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, the prosecutions are in

progress. We do not think that such a thing can be said either regarding

Shri Pandey or even the Trial Courts in Gujarat. We do not have any

reasons to believe that Shri Pandey, in his remaining tenure of about three

months, would take any such steps. We do not think that the Trial Courts

in Gujarat are capable of being pressurized in the manner expressed in the

Writ Petition.

7. An appointment of a government servant is the prerogative of the

particular government, particularly, when it is a sensitive appointment of 5

Director General of Police. We, under the doctrine of `judicial review',

would not extend our hands to upset such an appointment, more

particularly, in the factual panorama which is available today. We hold that

the present Writ Petition has become redundant and we dispose it of as

such. As for any disciplinary action against Shri Pandey, it is for the

concerned government. We will not enter the fact finding exercise.

8. Shri Rao further expressed that the Government of Gujarat might

extend the appointment by giving extension to Shri Pandey. We do not

think any such contention can be entertained at this stage, without there

being any basis for the same.

9. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the light of

observations made hereinabove.

......................................J. (Markandey Katju)

......................................J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

New Delhi;

January 13, 2009.