Petition challenging Sivanandhan’s appointment as state DGP dismissed | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Apr 23, 2017-Sunday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Petition challenging Sivanandhan’s appointment as state DGP dismissed

mumbai Updated: Jul 23, 2010 00:55 IST
HT Correspondent

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging D. Sivanandhan's appointment as state Director General of Police on the ground that it was a case of favoritism.

A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari rejected the petition filed by Thane-based lawyer R.R. Tripathi saying it wasn’t a case where the court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction.

The judges also took into consideration some Supreme Court verdicts saying public interest litigations pertaining to service matters might not be entertained.

On Thursday, Tripathi alleged that as Mumbai commissioner of police Sivanandhan had taken huge donation from a builder to purchase 220 bulletproof jackets for the force, which is impermissible under the law.

He also argued that Sivanandhan, who was then holding the post of additional director general of police, could not have been considered for the post of state DGP.

He alleged Sivanandhan was simultaneously promoted to DG's post and then selected for the top post.

This was in clear violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court for the appointment of heads of state police forces, Tripathi added. Advocate general Ravi Kadam objected to the PIL alleging it was a sponsored one. “One can understand if someone moves court once in a while, but every time a new DGP is appointed, the petitioner lawyer files a PIL and challenges the appointment,” said Kadam.

Tripathi also contended that two senior police officials were bypassed to appoint Sivanandhan as state DGP.

But the court discarded the contention, saying the aggrieved officers had an option to move the Central Administration Tribunal. “That forum would take care of their grievances,” said the bench.