Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Claiming Misuse Of Taxpayers' Money On RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat's Z+ Security
The Bombay High Court today dismissed a PIL that raised questions over the Z Plus security provided to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Chief Mohan Bhagwat and sought recovery of tax payers' money claiming that RSS is an "unregistered" organisation. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the PIL filed by one Lalan Kishore Singh,...
The Bombay High Court today dismissed a PIL that raised questions over the Z Plus security provided to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Chief Mohan Bhagwat and sought recovery of tax payers' money claiming that RSS is an "unregistered" organisation.
Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the PIL filed by one Lalan Kishore Singh, who claimed to be an activist.
Confirming the news, Maharashtra's Government Pleader (Nagpur Bench) Devendra Chauhan said the CJ's bench dismissed the petition after nothing that the same was "motivated" and did not involve anything related to "public interest."
"The PIL was listed before the Cheif's court today morning. It was dismissed as the bench noted that there was no proper research done by the petitioner before filing of the PIL. Further, the bench observed that the PIL involved no Public Interest and that it was a motivated one," Chauhan told Live Law.
A detailed order passed by the bench is yet to be made available.
The PIL was filed by Singh through advocate Ashwin Ingole. The PIL contended that RSS is an unregistered organisation, thus the Central Government cannot provide the organisation a Z-Plus security by spending tax payers' money.
"Therefore the petitioner is seeking recovery of tax payers money from the respondent no.3 (RSS) and therefore the present PIL espousing the cause of the citizens who are tax payers and the public money is being misused over the unregistered organization," the plea stated.
During the hearing, Chauhan argued that the petitioner had suppressed an order passed against him by the State Information Commissioner on the very issue.