State To Hc, Legal News, ET LegalWorld – Legal Firms


‘Writ of mandamus’ can only be sought against the mandatory provisions and not otherwise, submitted state government before Indore bench of high court in Mandsaur firing incident PIL.

A social activist, Paras Saklecha through his counsel Pratyush Mishra filed a PIL seeking direction from MPHC to home department for tabling Justice Jain Commission report before state assembly.

The petitioner had sought directions in terms of Section 3 (4) of the Commission of Enquiry Act,1952. But the government submitted before the court that it was not maintainable in the light of settled position of law.

The state government cited several orders of the Supreme Court and high courts across the country to substantiate their stand in relation to the ‘non-mandatory’ nature of the Act in question.

The PIL arose out of police firing on farmers, who were protesting on June 6, 2017 at Parshwanath Chowpati, 12 kilometre from Mandsaur city killing five of them.

The state government, on June 12, had formed a commission under chairmanship of retired high court Justice JK Jain to inquire into the Mandsaur firing issue. The Justice Jain Commission submitted its final probe report on June 13 in 2018.

The petitioner submitted that the general administration department had asked the home department on many occasions to furnish its comment on the report, so that it could be tabled before the legislative assembly. The home department, however hasn’t processed the same, submitted petitioner.

The state government in its reply submitted that the present PIL has been filed by the present petitioner as a private interest litigation to address his personal interest and earn political mileage, which is not permissible.

The present petitioner is a politically motivated person and has also previously contested in election from Ratlam in local body election and as MLA for the period of 2009-2013. The petitioner has filed the present petition to earn political mileage.


Source link