# Ashok Pande v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1229
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-08-23
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-pande-v-union-of-india-ors-42665
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Public
Interest
litigation-petition
seeking
prohibition of publishing photographs of
such political leader-bearing no portfolio
in government-like Sonia Gandhi and to
recover part of cost of such publicationheld-it will be hazardous to lay down any
ideal relationship between government
or their leader-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-10
Ultimately, in a public interest litigation,
the petitioner is required to show that
the prayer, which he is seeking, shall
promote public interest. It is very
difficult for the Court, considering the
set of facts and controversial issues, to
come to any final conclusion that the
petitioner's prayer, if granted, shall
promote public interest. Functioning of a
democracy in a healthy and vibrant
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
manner
requires
establishment
of
healthy practices and conventions. All
such matters cannot be governed by
statutory law. For example, one can see
the functioning of Government of United
Kingdom.
England
has
no
written
constitution but its system is known to
be mother of all democracies. It is the
responsibility of those in power to
establish
healthy
practices
and
conventions which can alone be the root
of democracy in this country, which has
achieved
independence
recently.
It
would not be proper for this Court to
interfere in such matters of policy.

## Text

3 All] Ashok Pande Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1229
of the petitioner or it is a case of suicide or
accidental death due to sudden slip, is required
to be investigated by independent agency.
According to the allegation late Mahant
Gokaran Giri was forcibly taken away by
respondent no.5 and his supporter and there
was apprehension that he might be killed,
hence the report was lodged under section 364
I.P.C. Subsequently after recovery of the dead
body,
section
302
I.P.C.
was
added.
Admittedly late Mahant Gokaran Giri was
aged about 95 years, hence he was not
expected to go alone near pond without taking
any help or without accompanied with any
disciple or supporter. The question is not
whether respondent no.5 and those persons
who are named in the First Information are
involved in the incident but firstly the question
is whether it was a murder or suicide or
accidental death and if it was a preplanned
abduction and murder then who are the
persons, who are involved in the incident dated
13.2.2013. The matter requires investigation by
independent agency to find out truth and to
place the same before the court concerned.

11. Hence in view of the fact of this
case, irrespective of the fact that final
report has been submitted and the same
has been accepted or not, the C.B.I. is
directed to investigate the matter with
regard to Case Crime No.264/2010 under
section 302 I.P.C. PS.Cantt, Bareilly and
to submit the report within a reasonable
time
before
the
court
concern
in
accordance with law. If final report
submitted by the civil police has already
been accepted the same stands quashed.

12. On the request of Investigating
Officer, C.B.I. the requisite papers of case
diary shall be handed over.

13. Accordingly this writ petition is
hereby allowed. However, no order as to cost.

14. Let a copy of this order be
supplied
to
Mr.Aurag
Khanna/Mr.
N.I.Zafri, learned counsel for C.B.I. for
follow up action, to communicate the
authorities concerned for compliance of
the order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.08.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, CHIEF
JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.

Misc. Bench No. 7444 of 2013(P.I.L.)

Ashok Pande

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Asok Pande(In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Public
Interest
litigation-petition
seeking
prohibition of publishing photographs of
such political leader-bearing no portfolio
in government-like Sonia Gandhi and to
recover part of cost of such publicationheld-it will be hazardous to lay down any
ideal relationship between government
or their leader-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-10
Ultimately, in a public interest litigation,
the petitioner is required to show that
the prayer, which he is seeking, shall
promote public interest. It is very
difficult for the Court, considering the
set of facts and controversial issues, to
come to any final conclusion that the
petitioner's prayer, if granted, shall
promote public interest. Functioning of a
democracy in a healthy and vibrant
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
manner
requires
establishment
of
healthy practices and conventions. All
such matters cannot be governed by
statutory law. For example, one can see
the functioning of Government of United
Kingdom.
England
has
no
written
constitution but its system is known to
be mother of all democracies. It is the
responsibility of those in power to
establish
healthy
practices
and
conventions which can alone be the root
of democracy in this country, which has
achieved
independence
recently.
It
would not be proper for this Court to
interfere in such matters of policy.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiva Kirti Singh,
Chief Justice)

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Pande, the
petitioner who has appeared in person and
learned counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Pande also happens to be an
Advocate of this Court.

2. The prayer made in this writ
petition filed as a public interest litigation is
to issue a mandamus directing the Cabinet
Secretary and Secretary, Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting (respondents
no. 1 and 2) of the Government of India to
prohibit all the departments and Public
Sector
Undertakings
from
publishing
photographs of political leaders who are not
holding any government office and that
such
prohibition
should
also
cover
photographs of Ms. Sonia Gandhi because
she is holding no post in the Union of India
but is actually the Chairperson of United
Progressive
Alliance,
in
various
advertisements which are published by
different departments from time to time in
the Newspapers, Television or anywhere
else. There is further prayer to direct the
respondents no. 1 and 2 to recover part of
the cost of advertisements issued with the
photographs of Ms. Sonia Gandhi during
last nine years, from her party, the Indian
National Congress. The last prayer is to
quash the order or letter dated 6.8.2013 of
respondent no. 2 along with the note of
Directorate of Advertising and Visual
Publicity (DAVP), respondent no. 3 dated
22.7.2013 on the ground that in the note
dated 22.7.2013, there are materials to
indicate that DAVP itself does not have any
authority in the matter raised by the
petitioner.

3. A similar writ petition was filed by
the petitioner bearing Writ Petition (M/B)
No. 4102 of 2013. That was also filed as a
public interest litigation. As appears from
the order dated 17.5.2013 contained in
Annexure-3 to the writ petition, that writ
petition was dismissed as premature
because the petitioner had rushed to this
Court
immediately
after
raising
his
grievance through a representation dated
15.5.2013. However, this Court granted
liberty to the petitioner that, if so advised,
he may approach this Court after reasonable
time, such as two-three months.

4. As noticed above, the main
response of the respondent communicated
to the petitioner is the note of DAVP dated
22.7.2013 contained as part of Annexure-5.
That note acknowledges that the comments
were on account of reference dated
20.5.2013 received from the Cabinet
Secretariat
on
representation
of
the
petitioner on the subject noticed above.
Paragraph-1 of that note simply indicates
the role of DAVP in publishing different
kinds of advertisements received from
various departments of Union of India.
Paragraph-2 discloses two reasons in
support of the governmental action under
challenge. First stand is that the contents of
the publicity material is the prerogative of
individual Ministry/Department and DAVP
has no role to play in it. The second stand is
3 All] Ashok Pande Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1231
that 'the achievements and programmes of
the Government are publicized through the
advertisements and it is an acceptable and
established
practice
to
include
the
photographs of the leaders under whose
benign guidance and leadership such
achievements have been made'.

5. The petitioner has submitted that
the second point made out in the notice
dated 22.7.2013 only talks of acceptable
and established practice to justify the
publication of photographs of leaders
without disclosing any law which may
support or permit such an action. With
regard to first point in paragraph 2, the
petitioner has criticized the respondents
that when the contents of publicity
material is prerogative of individual
Ministry/Department, the representation
should not have been sent to DAVP and
should not have been disposed of by the
Ministry
of
Information
and
Broadcasting, respondent no. 2 on the
basis of said note, rather the matter should
have been decided by the competent
authority, such as Cabinet Secretary who
represents respondent no. 1, the Union of
India.

6. Learned counsel for the Union of
India, on the other hand, has replied that
executive authority of the Union of India
is as wide as its legislative authority and it
is not necessary that each executive
decision must be in terms of some
statutory provision or law. According to
him, it is for the petitioner to show and
establish that the impugned action is
contrary to the constitutional or statutory
provisions in existence. With regard to the
issue of competence of the DAVP to reply
the representation, it has been submitted
that the note itself discloses that the
matter was referred to DAVP by the
Cabinet Secretariat and, therefore, it has
taken the stand that it is acceptable and
established
practise
to
include
the
photographs of leaders whose guidance
and leadership are required to be
acknowledged.

7. So far as the legal issue as to
whether any law is required to permit the
Union
of
India
to
issue
such
advertisements which have been objected
to by the petitioner, we are in respectful
agreement with the submissions made on
behalf of the Union of India that it is
within the powers of the Union of India to
take appropriate executive decisions and
the only limitation on such powers is that
the decisions must not run counter to any
constitutional or statutory provisions
which prohibit the respondents from
deciding the contents of publicity material
or to include as an acceptable and
established practice the photographs of
some
leaders
whose
guidance
and
leadership are considered fit to be
acknowledged.

8. The contents of the note, too, do
convey that the DAVP has no control over
the contents of the publicity material but
since a reference was made by the Cabinet
Secretariat, it has endeavoured to answer the
objection raised in the representation of the
petitioner by referring to acceptable and
established practice. It cannot be held, in
such circumstances, that the DAVP has acted
without jurisdiction in taking a stand with
regard to grievance of the petitioner in his
representation.

9. Some affairs of the Union of India
may relate to more than one departments and
when the Cabinet Secretariat refers a
representation to a particular department,
reply of such department cannot be quashed
1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the ground that it is without jurisdiction.
In executive and administrative matters, such
flexibility is required in the interest of
working of the Government and an issue on
this kind of allocation of responsibility can
be made or raised only if some law is shown
to have been violated.

10. Ultimately, in a public interest
litigation, the petitioner is required to show that
the prayer, which he is seeking, shall promote
public interest. It is very difficult for the Court,
considering the set of facts and controversial
issues, to come to any final conclusion that the
petitioner's prayer, if granted, shall promote
public interest. Functioning of a democracy in a
healthy
and
vibrant
manner
requires
establishment
of
healthy
practices
and
conventions. All such matters cannot be
governed by statutory law. For example, one
can see the functioning of Government of
United Kingdom. England has no written
constitution but its system is known to be
mother of all democracies. It is the
responsibility of those in power to establish
healthy practices and conventions which can
alone be the root of democracy in this country,
which has achieved independence recently. It
would not be proper for this Court to interfere
in such matters of policy.

11. So far as the issue of wastage of
public funds is concerned, it is not the case of
the petitioner that Government cannot issue
advertisements in Newspapers or Television.
Admittedly,
different
Governments
at
different levels have been doing so since long
time. If visual image is published or telecast in
a format which includes more than one or two
photographs then as to how much additional
financial burden would be involved, is
difficult to be ascertained or appreciated.

12. Further, it will be hazardous to
lay down, in concrete terms, the ideal
relationship between the party in power
and the Government which it has
provided. That relationship is itself a
tender and delicate relationship which
should not be disturbed by extraneous
forces. Only exceptional situation can
invite intervention of the Court when the
constitutional provisions are under threat
or have been breached.

13. We do not find any good reasons
to grant the prayers made in this writ
petition. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11551 of 2013

Smt. Gyan Wati

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Sri Rajendra Sonker
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Hariom Singh
Sri V.S. Parmar

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226-
Appointment of Angan Bari Karyakartipost advertised 31.01.11-selection list
finalized-on complaint-Naib Tehsildar in
report
dt.
15.10.12
found
income
certificate-wholly genuine document-but
no final order passed by D.M.-in between
by G.O. 04.09.12 ban on selection of
Angan Bari Karyakarti imposed-whether
appointment can be denied in garb by
G.O. 04.09.12-having prospective effect
?
held-'No'
ban
applicable
where
selection under process and not in such
cases where selection completed and
approval
pending
since
long.