B. Premanand vs Satyasai Baba and Others

The petitioner claims himself to be a Rationalist. He states he is the Convenor of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of claims of the paranormal in India which Committee is engaged in dispelling the superstitious and blind beliefs gripping the society in India and the world. he also claims to be an author of various books and article concerning the cause of spreading rationalism and scientific temper.

The petitioner states that the matters raised by him in the present writ petition are in public interest. Commanding the writ petition for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. K.N. Balgopal stated that in urging the matters for consideration of this court the petitioner is acting bonafide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and is not acting for any personal gain or private profit or out of any motivation or other oblique consideration. Learned counsel hastened to add that the petitioner has no ill-will against Sri Satyasai. Baba, first respondent herein. His only concern is to focus attention on what he considered to be a flagrant violation of certain provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (''the Act'' for short) and the continued indifference on the part of the authorities to whom representation were made by him since 1981 to take note of the alleged violations. Being fully convened that the authorities to whom representations were made by the petitioner are reluctant to take action, learned Counsel stated, the petitioner had no alternative but to bring the matter before the this Court for appropriate consideration. Demonstrating a sense of fairness, learned counsel put up for consideration of this Court certain legal propositions tersely and attractively and pleaded for issuance of notices to the respondents. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government.

Briefly put, the matter is this : Over the decades the first respondent gained reputation and popularity as a God-man and has considerable following throughout the country. It is stated that among the followers of the first respondent there are great and eminent persons belonging to different walks of life it is said that persons occupying high offices and also highly placed persons in the society are among the admirers of the first respondent. The petitioner states that the first respondent blesses his devotees who throng to have his audience. Some of the devotees, it is said, are very preferentially treated by the first respondent. He materializes holy ash (Vibhuti) from thin air and offers the same blessing some devotees; yet some others receive a variety of articles and things similarly materialized from air by the highly sophisticated and affluent class of devotees, receive very expensive articles and things similarly materialized by the first Respondent.

It is said that in a number of books published in (Prasanti Nilyam) where the first respondent lives, references are made to the first respondent materializing from air articles of solid gold, gold ornaments such as necklaces, rings, ''Mangala Sutrams'' (Thalis) and a host of other articles and ornaments, including those studded with precious stones like Diamonds, Rubies and Sapphires etc. The references in the books indicate that the article to the special category of devotees. The names of the recipients of these expensive presents made of gold are,it is claimed indicated in the books published. The petitioner consolidated a statement giving a description of the articles and golden ornaments materialized by the first respondent on different occasions and the names of the persons to whom they were presented by the first respondent. It is represented that this standard is prepared with reference to this information contained in the various books published.

The petitioner claims that in materializing got articles and ornaments in the above manner for presenting the same to the devotees by way of blessing the first respondent has been violating certain provision of the Act. In the affidavit filed it was stated that the first respondent has contravened the provisions contained in Section 8, 11, 14 and 16 of the Act which are punishable offenses u/s 85, 86 and 87 of the Act. The petitioner claims that the aforementioned acts of the first respondent involving according to the petitioner, violations of the Acts were brought to the notice of the Gold Control Authorities for taking appropriate action against the first respondent but the representations made by the petitioner went unheeded. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents 2 to 5 to initiate action against the first respondent for infringement of the provisions contained in Section 8, 11, 14 and 16 of the Act, punishable u/s 85, 86 and 87 of the Act. The petitioner seeks a further direction to the Union Government respondent No.2 herein, to initiate action against respondents 3 to 5 u/s 95 of the Act, as according to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5 have failed to discharge their duty for contravention of the provisions of the Act by the First Respondent when brought to their notice. This briefly is the subject matter of the writ petition.

In the affidavit as well as the writ petition reference was made to the alleged contravention of the provisions contained in sections 8, 11, 14 and 16 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated fairly during the course of his argument that Section 8 and 14 of the Act may have no relevance except in a general way. Learned Counsel for the petitioner did not specifically urged that there was any contravention by the first Respondent of the provisions contained in Section 8 and 14 of the Act. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a clear violation of the provision contained in Section 11 and 16 of the Act. In the aforementioned acts of the first respondent.

Section 11 of the Act prohibits the making, manufacturing, preparing, processing etc., of primary gold articles, ornaments etc. Learned Counsel made it clear that no allegation concerning primary gold is made against the first respondent. it is however pointed out that the First respondent materialized from air, by using his spiritual powers or otherwise, some gold articles and gold ornaments, it must be said that he had made, manufactured or prepared the gold articles and ornaments within the meaning of Clause (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section(1) of section 11 of Act. In as much as Section 11 totally prohibits the making, manufacturing or preparing any gold ornament or gold articles or anything containing gold of any purity except as otherwise, provided in the act, it must be said, argue the learned Counsel, that the first respondent committed violation of the provisions contained in the section 11 of the Act punishable u/s 85 of the Act. Attention is also invited to Section 16 of the Act which provides that every person who owns or is in possession, custody or control of any article or ornament shall make within thirty days from such acquisition a declaration in the prescribed from as to the quantity, description and other prescribed particulars of any article, or ornament, or both, owned possessed, held or controlled by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has strong reasons to believe that first respondent did not make a declaration u/s 16, learned counsel points out, is punishable u/s 86 of the Act and even if a declaration is make such a declaration did not include the gold articles and ornaments which he materialized and presented to devotees as above-mentioned. Violation of the provision of contained in Section 16, learned counsel points out, is punishable u/s 86 and 87 of the Act.

Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case e the first respondent could not be said to be making, manufacturing, or preparing or processing any gold articles or gold ornaments involving violation of the provisions of the facts contained in Section 16 of the ACt. Learned Standing Counsel also urged that in the facts and circumstances the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act also do not come into operation. Learned Standing Counsel urged that it was obviously for the above reasons that respondents 2 to 5 do not think it necessary to initiate any action as urged by the petitioners his representations.

I have given my anxious and careful consideration to the sub- missions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am unable to accept the contention that in the facts and circumstances urged in the present case there is any violation of the provisions contained in Section 11 and 16 of the Act. I have already indicated the relevant provisions in Section 11 and 16 of the. The short question for consideration is whether by materializing articles and ornaments, as alleged by the petitioners, the first respondent could be said to be ''making, manufacturing, preparing or processing'' any articles and or ornaments containing gold within the meaning of clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub- section (1) of Section 11 are not defined in the Act. The expressions, ''make'', manufacture'', ''prepare'', and ''process'' are not defined in the Act. Nor is there any provision in the Act as to when a person can be said to be making, manufacturing, preparing or processing any article or ornament containing Gold. These expressions must, therefore, be understood in their popular sense. The expressions occur in the providing for the control of the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of, and business in gold, ornaments thereto. These expressions have intimate connection with business, commerce or trade which involve making, manufacturing, preparing or processing of gold articles and ornaments. The making, manufacturering, preparing or processing of gold articles and ornaments containing gold involve different stages of operations. An article or an ornament which was admittedly materialized from air in a split second by the use of spiritual powers or otherwise cannot be said to have been made manufactured, prepared processed'' within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the Act. What is prohibited by the section 11 is only the manufacturing, making, preparing or processing etc., of golden ornaments and not materializing or processing etc., of golden ornaments from air without having recourse to any operations connected with the making, manufacturing, preparing or processing of gold articles and ornaments. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in materializing articles and ornaments contain gold in the manner alleged by the petitioner the first respondent has been making, manufacturing, preparing or processing of articles and ornaments containing gold. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that in the facts and circumstances urged by the petitioner there is no violation of the terms of Section 11 of the Act.

Adverting to the contention that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act in the sense that the first respondent failed to make a declaration including therein the ornaments and other articles materialized by the first respondent. I am again unable to accept that in the facts and circumstances, there is any obligation to make a declaration in respect of such matters. Even according to the petitioner the article or ornament is instantly materializing from thin air and given away to the devotees. It cannot therefore, be said that the petitioner has acquired any ownership or possession, custody or control of any such article or ornament. It is not denied that the article or ornament is not materialized by the first respondent for the purpose of acquiring any ownership or for the purpose of keeping it in his possession. It is categorically admitted that the article or ornament containing gold is materialized for the sole and specific purpose of giving it away blessing the devotees. The terms of Section 16 of the Act, therefore, have no application.

In order to justify the allegation that the first respondent acquired ownership or possession of article or ornament the petitioner makes certain averments in the affidavit, I may refer to the following averments :

" The first respondent has set up and controls many Trusts and he claims that he is a sanyasi and he renounced all his wealth. Then, plainly the said Trusts owned/controlled by the first respondent must be owning the said gold, gold articles and gold ornaments and passing them on to the first respondent. Neither have these Trusts complied with the requirements of he Gold Control legislation."

[para 8 of the affidavit]

Now, these averments are destructive of the petitioner''s own contention. If the origin and source of these articles and ornaments are traceable, as the petitioner claims, to the Trusts created by the petitioner then the Trusts should be asked to explain their source and origin and not the first respond. In that view no violations can be attributed to the first respondent and the entire exercise of the petitioner is futile. That apart, there is no supporting material to connect or link the first respondent. with the articles and things owned by the Trusts established by the first respondent and the instant materializing by the first respondent of the articles and ornaments from air. The petitioner has not been able to establish how things in the possession of the Trusts can magically travel through air into the hands of the first respondent. It is, therefore, clear that this allegation concerning the travel of articles and ornaments from the possession custody and control of the Trusts to the first respondent is made without the slightest supporting material. It is not possible to give any credence to the same.

On the own admission of the petitioner representation have been made to the respondents 2 to 5 since 1981. There are no grounds to think that these representations did not receive consideration of respondents 2 to 5. The fact that no action has been taken by respondents 2 to 5 would undoubtedly indicate that on a scrutiny of relevant provisions of the law respondents 2 to 5 were satisfied that there were no violations of law by the first respondent.

Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government was, therefore, right in contending that respondents 2 to 5 did not consider it necessary to take any action on the representation of the petitioner as no case of violation of the provisions of Sections 11 and 16 of the Act was made out. In that view the question of issuing any direction to the 2nd respondent to take action against respondents 2 to 5 u/s 95 of the Act does not arise.

In the result, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for the issue of Rules. The writ petition is accordingly rejected.