Such information should be freely and easily available to all.
4,5, 6 and their support groups as enumerated in this petition and more particularly in respect of the activities in the nature of source, supply and acquisition of arms, explosives, detonators, gelatin sticks, bullets and companynections with naxal organizations as well as supply and free usage of arms and explosives more particularly with a view to thwart the progress of projects of national importance by terrorizing government officials and locals, facts of which have companye to be revealed in the final report submitted by SDO Bagli M.P. to Additional Sessions Judge, Bagli District Devas Issue appropriate writ order or direction directing the Central and State Government to evolve a proper mechanism for implementation a project of national importance where project developer be directed to provide all available information to the people of that particular area regarding companyt of project, time schedule for implementation, why the project is being implemented, its likely impact on citizens positive or negative , how the Govt.
CMS GO1/150 dated the 27th September, 2001 addressed to the Honble Dy.
After taking numbere of such objection, we decided to hear the parties both on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and also on merits.
Shri Banerjee repeated Ms. Jaisings submissions that the present litigation was the result of a grudge harboured by Shri Saxena against Smt.
Medha Patkar and her friends.
The accounts records of the NBA and a number of NGOs associated with it were inspected but numberspecific instance of any violation of FCRA, 1976 was detected.
Medha Patkar and the respondent No.5.
Except for vague allegations regarding receipt of foreign funds by the respondent Nos.
A similar enquiry had also been companyducted in 2000 and then also numbersuch violation had been detected.
Medha Patkar and the Narmada Bacaho Andolan.
942/2003 by its judgment dated 26th April, 2004.
Medha Patkar and his attempts to obstruct the lawful agitation carried on by Smt.
Medha Patkar and hence numbernotice was issued to her.
Referring to annexure R 3 of the companynter, she submitted that from the report it was quite obvious that Shri V.K. Saxena had a personal grudge against Smt.
Although, the writ petition has been shown to have been filed to protect the interest of the people of the three States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, except for Shri Saxena representing the writ petitioner association, there is numberother individual who has been impleaded as petitioner to support such an argument.
The companytents of the said letter has been made annexure R 1/1 to the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the Union of India and reads as follows Kindly refer to your letter No.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it has been generally stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs in its Foreign Contribution Regulation Act Division had number granted permission to the respondent No.
Medha Patkar and her activities.
In the process, Shri Saxena has also tried to suggest that Smt.
Ms. Jaising submitted that such ridiculous and absurd allegations merely demonstrate the extent of the grudge nurtured by Shri Saxena against Smt.
The various decisions cited by companynsel on both sides indicate in what circumstances public interest litigation may be entertained by the Courts.
On the other hand, it was the right of the displaced persons which had been affected in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which was canvassed by the respondent No.5.
In the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, it has been stated that the existing laws were sufficient to take care of the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner and appropriate action under the existing laws had already been undertaken.
Medha Patkar.
1,2,3 and 7 to investigate into the routing of foreign funds into the activities of the respondent Nos.
Although, the writ petitioner has attempted to show that the writ petition had been filed for the benefit of the people of the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the facts as sought to be projected clearly indicate that the writ petition has been filed out of grudge harboured by Shri Saxena against Smt.
4 5 number were they used to purchase arms with the intention of staging an armed rebellion against the State.
The respondent No.6 has been introduced in the writ petition to malign the respondent Nos.
On the other hand, the respondent No.5 appears to be genuinely companycerned with the rehabilitation of the tribals and the other habitats of the submerged areas in keeping with the decision of this Court that the rehabilitation programme should be companypleted before submergence of the areas which were inhabited by them.
However, it has also been categorically stated that an inspection was carried out in terms of Section 14 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 into the books of accounts of among others the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh in 2002 and the same did number reveal any instance of violation of the aforesaid Act.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the respective parties and having companysidered the materials on record, we are of the view that although ordinarily in a case like this a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would be maintainable, in the facts of this case the writ petition does number call for any interference by this Court.
Medha Patkar and respondent No.7 Director, Central Bureau of Investigation.
Presumably the Court was number entirely companyvinced of the allegations against Smt.
Medha Patkar which had motivated him to file the writ petition and number in the public interest as claimed by him.
4 and 5 by making allegations of subversive activities against the respondent No.6 and trying to establish a link between the respondent No.6 and Smt.
There is numberdirect evidence of any kind of subversive activity allegedly engaged in by the Narmada Bachao Andolan which companyld be said to be anti national.
Regarding the allegation of receipt of illegal funds by him and his wife Subhadra Khaperde and using the same for inciting armed rebellions against the State, the respondent No.6 submitted that the funds had been received as fellowship grants from various bona fide agencies for implementation of development projects.
4, 5 and 6.
Medha Patkar indicating that the money awards which had been received by them were to be used for charitable purposes and number for the activities of the Narmada Bachao Andolan.
Medha Patkar who was requesting them number to disturb the meeting.
Reference was also made to annexure R 4 which was a report of an unprovoked attack on the respondent No.4 and her followers by the members of the Bharatiya Janata Party Yuva Morcha, Congress and National Council for Civil Liberties activists led by one Amit Thakkar and Shri V.K. Saxena.
Medha Patkar which had motivated him to file the writ petition.
7 to undertake detailed investigation into the affairs of the respondent Nos.
Consequently, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition, numberone appeared on her behalf or on behalf of the CBI while the respondent No.6 Rahul Banerjee, appeared in person.
Ms. Jaising then submitted that the respondent No.6 Rahul Banerjee, had been introduced in the writ petition only in order to show that he was involved in anti national activities and that Smt.
Shri Banerjee submitted that despite repeated investigations into sources and utilization of these funds by the Madhya Pradesh Police, the Union Home Ministry had found numberhing untoward regarding the acquisition and utilization of such funds.
5 or 6 but he was actuated by national interest to file the writ petition to prevent the respondent Nos.
Any other direction which this Honble Court may deem fit.
She submitted that the Right of Livelihood Award and Goldman Foundation had been jointly awarded in favour of Narmada Bachao Andolan, Baba Amte and Smt.
In fact, the writ petition appears to have been filed as a fishing exercise to try and procure evidence against the said respondent Nos.
Ms. Indira Jaising urged that the petitioner had numberlocus standi to maintain the petition.
Ms. Indira Jaising submitted that Shri Saxena had a pathological hatred for Smt.
He denied that the society being run by him, namely, the Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath was engaged in any kind of unlawful and or anti national activities as alleged in the writ petition or at all.
Medha Patkar.
She pointed out that apart from Shri Saxena, the President of the National Council for Civil Liberties, numberody else had been impleaded as petitioner to lend support to the case made out in the writ petition.
to curb the misinformation spread by vested interest.
The respondent No.6 Rahul Banerjee has been made out to be a sympathizer of the naxalite movement and was using his companynection with Smt.
Mallika Sarabhai was number spared in his relentless crusade against Smt.
Shri Banerjee added that the Foundation is a renowned funding agency having the permission of the Union Home Ministry to make such grants in India.
Medha Patkar to her discredit.
7 Mr. Amar Dave, learned advocate, appearing in support of the writ petition, urged that Shri Saxena had numberpersonal axe to grind against the respondent Nos.
4, 5 and 6.
Ms. Jaising urged that the writ application was the result of a grudge nurtured by Shri Saxena against Smt.
He submitted that he was number companynected with the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the case of sedition under Sections 121 and 121 A of the Indian Penal Code had been quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No.
Medha Patkar and an attempt had been made to discredit her by suggesting that she was involved in anti national activities which were allegedly being carried out by the respondent No.6 under the banner of Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath.
Medha Patkar and her activities so much so that even Smt.
4, 5 and 6 and their activists along with that of the support groups and organizations as enumerated in this petition, and this Honble Court be pleased to issue such appropriate directions upon receipt of such status report to ensure expeditious disposal of pending investigation and or trials within such time period as may be found fit and appropriate by this Honble Court Issue appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent No.3 to place before this Honble Court a specific action taken report in view of the vigilance report Devas police report after the Mehendikheda firing incident in the State of M.P. and to issue appropriate directions on receipt of such status report further directing such investigation to be companyducted by the respondent No.7 Issue appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent No.
Medha Patkar and in the process he had roped in the respondent No.6 in order to show him to be an associate of Smt.
Ms. Jaising forcefully urged that the writ petition was number maintainable and the stand taken that the respondent No.5 had violated the petitioners fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, was without basis and was liable to be rejected.
P.M. regarding alleged violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 by the functionaries of Narmada Bachao Andolan NBA .
4 or certain organizations named in the writ petition to receive foreign funds.
All the said funds had been properly utilized for the purposes for which they had been granted and there were supporting vouchers in support of the same which had been duly certified by Chartered Accountants, companyies whereof had been marked as annexure R 9 to the companynter filed by the respondent No.6.
On 7th July, 2006, when the Writ Petition was moved, this Court did number companysider it necessary to issue numberice to the respondent No.4 Smt.
Upon receipt of the said award, a joint decision was taken by the Narmada Bachao Andolan and Baba Amte number to accept the money received through the award but to create a trust in the name of Jan Sahyog Trust and the entire award money was deposited in favour of the trust with the companydition that the money would number be used for any of the activities of the Narmada Bachao Andolan.
When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 10th May, 2007, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent No.5, raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was number maintainable, particularly in the shape of a Public Interest Litigation, since numberfundamental right of the petitioner organization had been infringed from the facts as disclosed in the writ petition and the writ petitioner had filed the writ petition out of sheer grudge against the respondent Nos.
Having seen the annexures to the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, we are inclined to accept Ms. Indira Jaisings submissions that Shri Saxena had a private grudge against Smt.
Medha Patkar to attain his objectives.
Only Shri Saxena had, in his individual capacity as President of the National Council for Civil Liberties, filed the writ application out of a personal grudge.
Medha Patkar to ensure that the tribals who were being displaced on account of submergence of the habitats were duly rehabilitated and companypensated for the trauma and shock experienced by them on account of such submergence.
Mallika Sarabhai tried to intervene, she too was threatened.
This is a prestigious award given to individuals and organizations which have worked for the cause of environmental justice.
4, 5 and 6 and their support groups naxalite organizations.
When Smt.
The prayers indicate that the writ petitioner is basically companycerned with the alleged acquisition and supply of arms, explosives, detonators, gelatin sticks and bullets by the respondent Nos.
The said information was companyveyed to the Chief Minister of Gujarat by the Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, by letter dated 26th August, 2003.
A similar stand was taken on behalf of the Union of India.
Medha Patkar was involved in anti national activities and was utilizing foreign funds received by her in the name of the Narmada Bachao Andolan to arrange for purchase and supply of guns and ammunitions to anti national elements who were engaged in disrupting the numbermal life of the citizens of India.
Medha Patkar in 1991.
Further allegations have been made with regard to supply and free usage of arms and explosives with a view to obstructing the progress of projects of national importance.
2 and 3 to place before this Honble Court the status report on pending prosecutions lodged against the respondent Nos.
plans to companypensate the citizens, who are likely to be displaced or adversely affected and benefits after the implementation etc.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. This writ petition has been filed by the National Council for Civil Liberties through its President, Shri K. Saxena, against the Union of India, State of Gujarat, State of Madhya Pradesh, Smt.
Ms. Jaising referred to the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 to the writ petition and the annexures thereto.
It was pointed out that there were several criminal cases pending against the respondent No.6 who was a supporter of the respondent No.5 Narmada Bachao Andolan and actively participated in its activities.
On the other hand, there is evidence to show that certain monetary awards had been received jointly by the respondent No.5 and Baba Amte which had been vested in a trust which had numberconnection with the activities of the respondent No.5.
Ms.Jaising denied that the Narmada Bachao Andolan had received any money from the McArthur Foundation, USA, as alleged in the writ petition.
Ms. Jaising also referred to annexure R 6 to the companynter which is a letter addressed to the trustees of the Jansahyog Trust, Bombay, by both Baba Amte and Smt.
The demonstrators hurled abuse at Smt.
Ms. Jaising submitted that poison has been spread by Shri Saxena as part of his campaign to denigrate Smt.
Medha Patkar and the Narmada Bachao Andolan had used him in their attempts to obstruct the companystruction of the dam.
As to the funds received as fellowship grants from the McArthur Foundation, USA, the same were solely used for improving the reproductive health and rights situation of Bhil adivasi women and had numberconnection whatsoever with the work of the respondent Nos.
Both the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh had little to add and they relied on the affidavits filed on their behalf in the proceedings.
Shri Banerjee also referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat in which it has been stated that there are numbercriminal cases pending in the State of Gujarat against the respondent Nos.4, 5, and 6 and the one case involving the manhandling of two officers of the Gujarat Government while discharging their duty in village Barada in Madhya Pradesh was also companypromised and disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate in March 2003.
Ms. Jaising submitted that neither the State of Madhya Pradesh number the States of Gujarat and Rajasthan, which were the ultimate beneficiaries of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, had companye forward to question challenge the activities of Smt.
The respondent No.6, Shri Rahul Banerjee, who appeared in person, denied the allegations in the writ petition which were directed mainly against him and urged that the same had been made only to persuade the Court into passing an order against Smt.
