Supreme Court Judgment Index 2018

What is sought for in the said writ petition is registration of an FIR under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and a Court Monitored Investigation. The further relief of quashing the Inter­ Governmental Agreement of 2016 for purchase of 36 Rafale Jets has also been prayed for.

We find no reason for any intervention by this Court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 defence aircrafts by the Indian Government. Perception of individuals cannot be the basis of a fishing and roving enquiry by this Court, especially in such matters. We, thus, dismiss all the writ petitions, leaving it to the parties to bear their own costs. We, however, make it clear that our views as above are primarily from the standpoint of the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

Pleas were raised, inter alia, for post approval impact assessment on environment and not only a prior environment impact assessment of the DCR; that there was no genuine endeavor to provide alternative accommodation to slum dwellers, but it was only vote bank politics, as evidenced by repeated extensions of deadlines for providing alternative accommodations; that the new development plan continued to offer FSI incentive to land owners; that the Commissioner exercises powers, in respect of FSI, almost as a mandatory requirement rather than a discretionary exercise; that there has been an increase in vehicular traffic in the city of Mumbai; that the increase in FSI has led to an influx of population in various regions in Mumbai; that the Pradhan Mantri Avas Yojana Scheme providing ‘pucca ghar’ to the population would result in further influx into Mumbai, etc.

The High Court is a Constitutional Court. The State Court is best equipped to look into local matters, especially where the area development and zoning regulations of the state or the city are in question. The problems and solutions may vary from state to state. It is really not for this Court to sit as an appellate court over these matters, unless some patent illegality is shown, or it is shown that there is any contravention of the constitutional mandate. We find no such case made out, here. We have to keep in mind the principles of separation of powers. The elected government of the day, which has the mandate of the people, is to take care of policy matters. There is a democratic structure at different levels, starting from the level of Village Panchayats, Nagar Palikas, Municipal Authorities, Legislative Assemblies and the elected Parliament; each of them has a role to perform. In aspects, as presented in the instant case, a consultative process is always helpful, and is one which has already been undertaken. The philosophy of appellant no.2 cannot be transmitted as a mandatory policy of the government, which is what would happen were a mandamus to be issued on the prayers made. Perspective of individuals may vary, but if the elected bodies which have policy formulation powers, is to be superceded by the ideals of each individual, the situation would be chaotic. The policies formulated and the legislations made, unless they fall foul of the Constitution of India, cannot be interfered with, at the behest of the appellants. The appellants have completely missed this point.

The appellant was prosecuted and eventually convicted for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/­ and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

It is not in dispute that the appellant is now in his late sixties and no longer in service. He is also ailing. It is also not in dispute that he was not involved in any other criminal activity during his entire service tenure except the case at hand which relates to the year 1999 and now we are in 2018. We accordingly consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to reduce the appellant’s jail sentence to “what the appellant has undergone till date and enhance the fine amount from Rs. 15,000/­ to Rs. 25,000/­ “.