Arun V. Betkekar vs Union of India and others

Mohit S. Shah, C.J. and N.M. Jamdar, J.—The petitioner claiming to be a public supported citizen, has filed this petition purporting to be Public Interest Litigation, for issuing directions regarding the office of the Chairman of respondent No. 3 - Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) and has prayed for removal of respondent No. 4 from the office of the Chairman of TIFR. According to the petitioner, the Union of India, Department of Atomic Energy and TIFR should be directed to appoint a person who is public servant governed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as the Chairman of TIFR.

TIFR is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is governed by the Rules and Bye-laws for TIFR at Exhibit ''A'' to the petition. The administration and the management of TIFR vests in Council. As per Rule 4, the Council shall consist of 8 members;

(a) three members appointed by the Government of India,

(b) one member appointed by the Government of Maharashtra,

(c) two members appointed by the Trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust,

(d) the Director of the Institute (Ex-officio member); and

(e) a member to be co-opted on the basis of a recommendation to be made by the above mentioned seven members of the Council.

The term of office of every member (other than the Director) shall be for a period of three calendar years and such members are, however, eligible for re-appointment. Rule 5 provides that the Council shall elect its own Chairman from amongst its members, other than the Director.

Respondent No. 4 and Mr. R. Krishnakumar are two members appointed by the trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. Respondent No. 4 has been elected as Chairman of the Council of TIFR under Rule 5.

As stated in the petition, the need for a dedicated Institute for nuclear research was envisaged by eminent nuclear scientist Dr. Homi J. Bhabha who formed TIFR for starting nuclear research in India with the help of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. TIFR was inaugurated on 19th December, 1945. TIFR formed the nucleus of all major Atomic Energy installations/organizations in the country. The Atomic Energy Commission of India was constituted in 1948 to formulate the policies and programmes to make India a leading nation in the nuclear technology. The Department of Atomic Energy was formed in 1954 to fund, create and operate all the facilities needed for India''s atomic energy programme. In the year 1955-56 TIFR was taken over by the Government of India through a tripartite agreement between the Government of India, the then Government of Bombay and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. Thereafter declaration of trust was made on 10th March, 1964, to which the Government of India, the Government of Maharashtra and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust are parties.

It is in view of the aforesaid history of TIFR that two members are being appointed by the trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Respondent No. 4 was appointed as a member by the trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust in the year 2000. Since respondent No. 4 is one of the members of the Council, under Rule 4 of the Rules and Bye-laws of the TIFR, respondent No. 4 is eligible to be elected as Chairman of the Council from amongst the members of the Council (other than Director) as provided in Rule 5 of the Rules. In view of the above, it is manifestly clear that there is no infirmity in the appointment of respondent No. 4 as the Chairman of the Council of TIFR.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that since the funds are being provided by the Government of India, the Chairman should be a public servant governed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, is not in a position to show any legal basis for raising such contention. Merely because the institution/organization which is registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is funded by the Government of India, there is no legal obligation of the Government of India to appoint a public servant as the Chairman of the managing Council of such, institution/organization. In view of the above, we find no merit in the principal contention raised in the petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely upon certain press clippings in order- to contend that respondent No. 4 is not a fit person to be continued as Chairman of the Council of TIFR. As per the settled legal position, mere newspaper clippings cannot be relied upon in order to challenge the credentials of the holder of an office. There is no material on record of this petition on the basis of which it can be contended that respondent No. 4 is not a fit person to be continued as Chairman of the Council of TIFR.

On the contrary, after amending the petition, the petitioner has pointed out in Paragraph No. 1 of the petition that the petitioner himself was an employee of TIFR since 1977 till the date of termination of his services in 2007. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 2007 after holding a departmental inquiry pursuant to a charge-sheet served in the year 2002. This very petitioner had previously filed Public Interest Litigation No. 89 of 2008 challenging the extension granted to Dr. Anil Kakodkar as Chairman of the Department of Atomic Energy after the age of his superannuation. While dismissing the said petition by judgment dated 15.10.2009, this Court held in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment that the petition lacked bona fide; that the petitioner was a dismissed employee of TIFR and had been litigating against TIFR for a considerable period of time. This Court also noted in the said judgment that the Industrial Court at Mumbai vide its order dated 2.7.2007 had noticed that the petitioner had approached the learned Judge of the Industrial Court for giving favourable judgment in the matter before that Court After holding that the said petition lacked bona fide, this Court also specifically observed that the petition was instituted with a personal bias.

In the aforesaid background and in the absence of any legal basis for the contentions raised, this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only). The learned Counsel for the respondents state that the costs may be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.

Ordered Accordingly.