Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking High Level Enquiry In Patwari Recruitment Scam; Imposes ₹10K Costs

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which sought high-level enquiry into an alleged scam in recruitment of Patwari by the Madhya Pradesh Employees Selection Board, with rupees ten thousand costs.

While finding the petition unmerited, the Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Hirdesh observed,

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the present writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation is based on newspaper reporting without conducting any research and without even disclosing the source of information, from which it can be inferred that the scam has taken place, this Court finds no reason to entertain this writ petition…”

The petitioner Raghunandan Singh Parmar filed the PIL challenging the Patwari recruitment process, the examinations for which were held in March-April, 2023 and results were declared on July 11, 2023.

It was alleged in the petition that there was a huge recruitment scam due to which meritorious students were deprived of appointments as Patwaris. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for constitution of a High-Level Committee headed by a Retired/Sitting Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh to enquire into the matter.

However, Mr. Anand Soni, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the PIL has been filed only on the basis of newspaper cutting accompanied with certain unsubstantiated and irrelevant documents.

He further alleged that the petitioner is actively involved in politics, who was previously a member of the Congress Party. Therefore, it was argued that he filed this petition with oblique motive to gain political mileage keeping in view the forthcoming Legislative Assembly elections.

Court’s Observations

The Court at the outset observed that the petition has been filed purely on the basis of newspaper reports. Further, incorrect declarations have been made as regard non-availability of alternative and efficacious remedy. Again, the Court was of the view that Rules 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Chapter XIII-A of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 were not complied with, for which the petition deserved to be dismissed.

“In view of the non-compliance of the Rules of 2008 as well as the pendency of the inquiry report before the Lokayukt M.P., and the guidelines laid down in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition,” the Court observed.

The Bench further placed reliance upon the decisions of the High Court wherein it was held that PILs cannot be filed solely basing upon newspaper reports.

Subsequent to the hearing, the Additional Advocate General produced a letter dated 19.07.2023, in which it was stated that the State Government has already taken action to enquire into the alleged irregularities in the recruitment of Patwari by appointing a Retired Judge of the High Court Madhya Pradesh.

Therefore, having considered the action taken by the State Government, the Court deemed it proper to restrain itself from passing any further direction in the matter. But before parting with the case, the Court held that the petitioner to be liable for wasting precious time of the Court and said,

“It appears that petitioner has filed the present writ petition even without filing a representation before the State Government and directly approached this Court, which is in violation of Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, as stated in the preceding paragraphs. This Court is of the considered opinion that some cost deserves to be imposed on the petitioner for wasting the precious time of this Court.”

Consequently, the petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹10,000/- which was directed to be deposited within 30 days of the order.

Case Title: Raghunandan Singh Parmar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 16574 of 2023

Date of Order: July 19, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Anand Soni, Addl. Advocate General

Click Here To Read/Download Order