Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Pathak vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. ... on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 309 of 2023
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pathak
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development, U.P. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Mishra,Ravi Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indra Jeet Singh
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Shri Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Indra Jeet Singh, learned counsel representing Nagar Palika Parishad, Sharavasti.
This petition purportedly filed in Public Interest, raises some questions in respect of a bid floated on 03.03.2023 by Nagar Palika Parishad, Unnao for certain construction work. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to quash the bid process initiated vide bid notice dated 03.03.2023.
While we examine the credentials of the petitioner to institute proceedings of this Public Interest Litigation petition what we notice is that the petitioner has stated baldly that he is a social worker and he is resident of District Shravasti and that he keeps doing some social work and that during Covid-19, he distributed food-grains and food.
What is startling to know is that the entire petition is based on certain representations preferred by certain individuals, namely, (1.) the application/representation dated 25.03.2023 furnished by one Noorjahan, wife of Abdulla Khan, (2.) the application/representation dated 16.03.2023 furnished by M/s Shakti Industries, (3.) the application dated 10.03.2023 submitted by M/s Rajveer Traders and General Order Supplier and (4.) an application submitted by M/s New Star Enterprises.
When the Court confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner as to from which source the aforesaid documents which are the basis of this petition have been procured by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these are the persons, who raised certain objections to the bid process.
From a perusal of the aforesaid documents, it appears that the applications/objections have been made against the bid by the interested persons who are contractors and general order suppliers or are engaged in such business which may have direct link to the subject matter of the bid in question.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest judgment in the case of State of Jharkhand versus Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, decided on 07.11.2022 (Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.10622-10623 of 2022 and also Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.11364-11365 of 2022 has laid emphasis on examining the credentials of the person approaching the Court in Public Interest Litigation petition.
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case that, "what is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is the bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL."
Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed in the said judgment that, "the locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause."
When we examine the credentials of the petitioner on the anvil of the aforesaid law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shankar Sharma (supra), what we find is that the petitioner has instituted these proceedings at the behest of certain traders/contractors who may have ample interest in the bid process.
For the reason aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the same appears to be an attempt to misuse the process of law and the court proceedings.
The writ petition is thus dismissed.
We may, however, make it clear that we have not made any observation as to the legality or otherwise of the bid process.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023
KR
