Shri Vijay K. Saluja And Anr. vs New Delhi Municipal Committee And ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 615 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition as Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, praying as under:-

"(a) Issue a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the appointments of the respondent No.2 and 3.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent NDMC to make all appointments/promotions on regular basis in consultation with UPSC, wherever required, and do away with adhoc appointments, and, appointments of retired officers on consultation basis and instead make regular promotions, expeditiously.

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the holding of an inquiry by CBI into the affairs of the NDMC where crores of public funds have been, and are being squandered on projects by incompetent and inefficient vested interests leading to loss of revenue of crores of rupees to the NDMC to the detriment of the public.

(d) Issue directions to the CBI to hold inquiry with reference to the above prayer (b) and (c) in time bound programme and submit the report before this Hon'ble Court."

2. So far as prayers (a) and (b) are concerned, the same are not required to be dealt with in this matter as separate petition has been filed in this behalf.

3. So far as prayers (c) and (d) are concerned, the allegations are made that NDMC has spent crores of rupees and amount has been squandered on projects by incompetent and inefficient officers with vested interests leading to loss of revenue.

4. In response to the notice, Secretary, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi has filed a reply, inter alia, pointing out that vide resolution dated 12.2.1969, the Committee of the Corporation approved construction of New Delhi City Centre. In the first phase 18 storeyed building known as "Palika Kendra" which houses the Head Quarters of the NDMC was constructed and completed in 1984. In the second phase, 32 multi storeyed tower was proposed to be constructed while in the third phase, an Art Gallery, Committee Room and Auditorium were proposed to be constructed. It is also pointed out that in 1971 foundation of both the phases was completed through a contractor. In December, 1971, the Government appointed a Committee known as "Re-Development Advisor Committee" in view of construction taking place in the areas. A letter dated 23.11.1971 was also received from the concerned Ministry pointing out review of proposal of construction of multi storeyed building. In view of this, it appears that by passing a resolution dated 28.1.1972, the project was kept in abeyance for some time. After considering the recommendations, the Committee took a decision to commence the work of Phase I. There was revision in the estimates. It is pointed out that some proceedings were filed in the Court and in view of the proceedings pending it was not possible for the Council to carry out with the object and this situation continued till 1991. Thereafter disputes were raised by some of the parties to the work. These aspects are required to be borne in mind. In 1995 Archeological Survey of India (for short "ASI") instructed not to construct and not to occupy the building. Averments are also made to the effect that ASI was not only to take quick decision but to seen that public funds are not wasted and the property is put to use for the convenience of the public at large. Ultimately, it appears that dispute has been resolved and now we are informed that 99% of the work is complete and within a very short period ill will be in a position to occupy the building. It is in this background the allegations made by the petitioner are required to be examined.

5. The allegation is that lift equipment purchased could not be used for a long time. When a decision was taken to erect a building, order must have been placed for the equipments but when the building was not complete, naturally the same could not be used. There are allegations about mis- application of funds. It may be noted that there are auditors of the Council who are looking after the accounts. Over and above, the accounts are subject to scrutiny that may be made by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, a Constitutional Authority under the Constitution of India. If a crime is committed, it is open for the petitioner to file a complaint before the appropriate authority but on such allegations in the background which we have indicated hereinabove, it would not be proper for the court to sit as an Expert and permit the petitioner to prosecute the proceedings further in Public Interest Litigation.

6. We are of the opinion that no case is made out to exercise the powers and hence the petition is dismissed.