BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPLICATION NO.93/2014
CORAM
:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) HON’BLE DR. AJAY A.DESHPANDE (EXPERT MEMBER)
B E T W E E N:
1. KASHINATH JAIRAM SHETYE. Son of late Mr. Jairam Shete Major of age, Occupation: Service, Resident of Ground Floor, Babino Building, Alto Fondvem, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. PIN Code 403 006. 2. Dr. KETAN GOVEKAR. Major of age, Occupation: Service, Resident of Third Floor, Wadji Building, St.Inex, Panji, Tiswadi, Goa. PIN Code 403 001. 3. CA.Pradip Kakodkar. Major of age, Occupation: Professional, Resident of H.No.125, Bansai Curchorem, Goa Pin Code 403 706. ….APPLICANTS
Page 1 (J) Application No.93/2014 (WZ)
AND
MANOHAR PARRIKAR, Chief Minister of Goa, Secretariat Porvorim, Goa.403 521. ………RESPONDENT
Counsel for Applicant(s): Mr. Asim Srode Advocate, a/w Vikas Shinde, Pratap Vitankar Advocate, Alka Babaladi Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Absent – Nemo
Date: 3rd December,2014
J U D G M E N T
1.
This Application is filed by Mr. Kashinath Shetye
and two others. They urge that this Tribunal may take cognizance of certain utterances and speeches of the Respondent, which amount to Contempt of the Court. According to them, statements made by the Respondent in the public speeches have tendency to interfere with due course of justice and lower down image of judiciary in esteem members of public. They allege that the public statements and speeches of the Respondent tantamount to Page 2 (J) Application No.93/2014 (WZ)
unwarranted imputations against the Judges/Members of N.G.T, which may cause disturbance in the manner of their judicial functioning. The speeches of the Respondent as reported in the local print media dated 2.6.2014 and 11.6.2014, go to show that the Respondent criticized the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). It is further stated that he may demand Bench of NGT in the State of Goa itself. According to the Applicants, statements made
by
detrimental
the to
Respondents, functioning
are of
contemptuous
the
judicial
and
system,
particularly, independence of N.G.T. The Applicants have relied upon some case laws, wherein independence of judiciary is highlighted. 2.
By order dated October 17th, 2014, we granted time
to learned Advocate for the Applicants to place on record certain documents, which the Applicants desired to put in place. The Applicants have filed a CD (Ex.’G’), of the speeches rendered by the Respondent along with notes of arguments. 3. the
We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Asim Sarode, for Applicants.
We
have
gone
through
the
reports
appearing in the media and statements made by the Respondent. The Respondent, as the then Chief Minister of State of Goa, no doubt, stated that certain orders of the NGT were not in the interest of economic policy of the State.
Page 3 (J) Application No.93/2014 (WZ)
He also stated that he would demand separate Bench of NGT for Goa, because many a times the officers of State Govt. were required to attend the NGT at Delhi and Pune, which did put financial burden on the State Ex-Chequer. We may usefully refer to the earlier Contempt Petition No.8 of 2014, filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa, by the present Applicants. By order dated 13th March, 2014, the Hon’ble Division Bench, dismissed that Contempt Petition, on the ground that suo-motu, cognizance of the alleged contempt may not be taken on basis of averments made in that Application. Of course, it is not essential for our purpose to consider the issues involved in that matter. It may be, however, stated that the Applicants are pursuing the same remedy in different forums. 4.
Perusal of the utterances and part of speeches, which
are reproduced by the Applicants in their Application, as well as in the print media (Newspapers) even if, are to be prima facie considered, then also it is difficult to say that such remarks/statements tantamount to interference in the work of judicial system or any kind of intention to scandalize the Courts. The utterances or speeches of a Chief Minister, must be considered in the background of his ‘intention’ in order to find out whether he desired to weaken the Authority of Law and Majesty of the Courts.
Page 4 (J) Application No.93/2014 (WZ)
5.
In “P.N.Duda vs P.Shiv Shankar & Ors”, 1988
SCR (3) 547, the then Union Minister - Shiv Shankar, was discharged from similar charge, “when it was unclear was what his intention and nature of utterances”. As repeatedly quoted, Lord Atkin’s off quoted declaration in the Ambard (1936) case, is instructive. “The path of criticism is the public way…..Justice is not a cloistered virtue. She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men”. 6.
In any case, the Courts/Tribunals cannot and should
not take cognizance of trivial matters and call upon a party for taking punitive action. It is only when such a party is found to be dis-respective and have intentionally disobeyed, disregarded the directions/orders of the Tribunal, or has/have committed contempt by undue criticism, so as to lower down image of the Judiciary in esteem of the public with ill-intention, such action is warranted. In our opinion, the Respondent should have taken care in the public speeches to use the words, as like statesman instead of a popular leader of a group, since his position was that of a Chief Minister, which is a most important and coveted post in the State. We need not add anything further, so as to put a word of advice in this context. Because, we are hopeful that the Respondent will take caution in future, while
Page 5 (J) Application No.93/2014 (WZ)
criticizing any other pillar of the democracy. With these observations, the Application is summarily dismissed.
..……………………………………………, JM
(Justice V. R. Kingaonkar)
….…………………………………………, EM
(Dr.Ajay A. Deshpande)
Date: 3rd December, 2014.
Page 6 (J) Application No.93/2014 (WZ)
Page 7 (J) Application No.93/2014 (WZ)
