MP High Court Imposes Rs 2 Lakh Cost On Revenue Officer, RTI Activist For Harassing Senior Citizen With Bogus 'False Domicile' Complaint
Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed Rs 2 lakhs cost on SDO (Revenue), Sendhwa and an RTI activist (complainant) to be paid jointly for harassing an elderly couple through proceedings beyond the scope of the law. According to the court, such harassment was done on the pretext that the petitioner, a retired college principal, issued a false domicile certificate in his wife's favour for...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed Rs 2 lakhs cost on SDO (Revenue), Sendhwa and an RTI activist (complainant) to be paid jointly for harassing an elderly couple through proceedings beyond the scope of the law.
According to the court, such harassment was done on the pretext that the petitioner, a retired college principal, issued a false domicile certificate in his wife's favour for B.Ed. admission back in 2013.
“…this petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) payable to the petitioner for the harassment meted out to him by respondent No.3 (in person, posted at relevant time) and respondent No.5 jointly and severally. Let cost amount be recovered from the respondents No.3 and 5 and paid to the petitioner”, the bench sitting at Indore accordingly quashed the 2023 order passed by SDO directing the current principal of govt. college to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner.
The single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Rusia noted that the petitioner, in-charge principal of Sendhwa Govt. Post Graduate College at that time, merely certified that the B.Ed candidate was his wife and she had been residing with him. Merely stating that the candidate -wife was a domicile of the state of Madhya Pradesh since 1980 cannot be equated with the issuance of a domicile certificate, hence the court opined that there was no attempt by the petitioner to usurp the authority of SDO.
The court also didn't take kindly to the acts of the complainant-RTI activist who deliberately harassed the retired professor with the assistance of SDO(Revenue).
“…It is apparent that respondent No.5 [RTI Activist] has some personal grudge against the petitioner, otherwise no RTI activist can go to such an extent to obtain the documents of B.Ed. admission of any candidate…” the court pointed out in the order.
The court also expressed its disbelief at how the SDO(Revenue) came to think that he was empowered under the law to examine a matter relating to admission to a B.Ed. course. The officer should not have entertained such a frivolous complaint especially since the petitioner was never an employee/subordinate of him, the court clarified that the instance was a sheer abuse of revenue officer's power and authority.
For B.Ed. admission, there was no requirement that the candidate should be a Madhya Pradesh domicile to get admission, the court added. Hence it can be inferred that the petitioner never intended to take undue advantage of the certificate by posing it as a domicile certificate. Even if the said certificate issued is taken as a domicile certificate, it could have been rejected by the competent authority at the time of counselling of the B.Ed. candidate, the court opined. Even otherwise, no false declaration has been given by the retired professor in the document issued since the details including the residence are accurate.
“…Now, after seven years, on the basis of a complaint of the RTI Activist i.e. respondent No.5, this senior citizen petitioner and his wife, both, were unnecessarily harassed by the respondent No.3. It appears that at the instance of respondents No.3 and 5, now Swami Vivikanant Shiksha Mahavidyalay, Sendhwa is going to cancel admission of Smt. Nirmala Verma in B.Ed. Course, which took place in the year 2012-13…”, the court termed it as a height of misuse of powers and authority by SDO (Revenue).
Noting the above, the court has also asked the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department to examine the conduct of SDO (Revenue) and initiate disciplinary action against him if necessary. Even the report submitted by SDO (Police) to the Superintendent of Police, Barwani in 2020 at the request of the complainant himself indicated that no offence or forgery was committed by the petitioner, the court pointed.
On another note, the court mentioned that the RTI activist did not clarify in his complaint given to the SDO (Revenue) about the provision under which he is seeking penal action against the petitioner. Even the SDO failed to examine his authority to entertain such a complaint and instead constituted a three-member committee that effectively acted as police in the matter. The Committee's report was then submitted to SDO.
“…The Committee acted as police and recorded the statements of the witness, summoned the record. The statement of the petitioner and his wife were also recorded, which is nothing but harassment of senior citizen”, the court emphasised.
Advocate L.C. Patne appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Sudhanshu Vyas appeared on behalf of AG for the state authorities. No one represented Respondent No. 5. RTI activist.
Case Title: Dr. Ashok Verma v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 8121 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 51