HC makes forum swallow bitter PIL

The bench said that despite the forum’s “strenous effort” there was no substance in any of its contentions. It said that from the rules produced before it, it found out that no qualification or guideline has been prescribed governing the office of the sheriff. For the same reasons, it did not accept the charge that the state government had arbitrarily appointed Pinto.

“The petitioners have not pointed out or relied on any provision contained in law which renders a person against whom a criminal case is pending or who is found to have not paid any tax due from him disqualified from being considered for the post of sheriff.” The bench, however has remarked that it is time steps are taken to lay down the qualifications for making such an appointment. “It is also timely to do so now, since the appointment of a new sheriff would be due towards the end of December 2000.”

The forum had filed two petitions, one each on the original and appellate side of the court, citing various reasons including that Pinto is not suitable as there are cases pending against him. The forum was represented by Bhagwanji Raiyani and Sandeep Desai. Dissecting this allegation, the court stated: “Two criminal cases can be said to be pending against Pinto and his wife. There is nothing in them which warrants interference of this court in the appointment of Pinto as sheriff of Mumbai. While we do not propose to comment on the merits, it is clear from the report filed by Anti-Corruption Bureau before the criminal court, that the prosecuting agency has itself stated that there is deficient evidence against Pinto and his wife.”

As regards the allegation of capitation fees are said to have been collected by Pinto’s schools, the bench said it was impossible from a mere perusal of a 1997 receipt to infer that Pinto is guilty. Also against the charges of concealment of income, Pinto has filed an affidavit stating that an appeal against the order relied by the petitioner has been allowed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals).

The bench said the petition was a “clear attempt to discredit” Pinto, who is mainly from the field of education and has several educational institutions which have “gained prominence” with over 1.25 lakh children. It pointed out that one of the petitioners was a council member of the Janata Party. The sheriff entered office on January 27, 2000, and the writs was filed June 23, and March 4, “almost a period of six months before moving this court, particularly when the tenure is of one year.”

Taking a serious view of the “allegations of extremely scandalous nature” against Pinto’s wife, the bench expunged the paragraphs concerned from the petition. It observed, “The allegations pertain to her personal character and are highly offensive. It is clear that the petition is with oblique purpose to tarnishing the reputation of Pinto, and more unfortunatly, his wife.”