Sunil Tripathi vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2048 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                              WP(C) No.8894/2009

                    Sunil Tripathi                       ..... Petitioner
                              Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
                              Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate

                       versus

                  UOI & Ors.                              ..... Respondents
                               Through: Mr. Pawan Upadhaya, Advocate for
                               respondent No.3.
                               Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for
                               Mr. R.N. Nayak, newly added respondent.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 14.05.2009

1. The present petition, styled as a public interest petition, has

been filed alleging that there were allegations of corruption and

financial irregularities committed by Mr. R.N. Nayak, Executive

Director, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited(PGCI). As per the

petitioner he had given information/complaints but no action was

taken despite reminders. According to the petitioner pursuant to the

memorandum dated 4th February,2009 issued by the Central

Vigilance Commission(CVC) a three member committee was

constituted by the PGCI to examine the issue and inquire into the

irregularities. He has relied on the findings of the committee dated

12th February, 2009 and the letter of the Chairman and Managing

Director, PGCI dated 23rd March, 2009 to contend that even as per

the committee as also the Chairman and Managing Director of

respondent No.3 the irregularities committed by Mr. R.N. Nayak had

been established. Despite this, though the report of the Committee

and the letter of the Chairman/Managing Director of respondent No.3

having been forwarded to the Ministry of Power and the CVC, no

action is being taken. Accordingly, the petitioner was constrained to

file the writ petition.

2. Though Mr. R.N. Nayak was not made a party to the petition,

Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate appeared on his behalf on 13th May,

2009 and on his oral request Mr. R.N. Nayak was impleaded as a

party. It is the contention of the counsel for Mr. R.N. Nayak that Mr.

Nayak has been harassed time and again at the behest of interested

parties who have filed false and malicious complaints against him.

As per the counsel, Mr. R.N. Nayak has been harassed time and

again by repeated false complaints being made against him which

have no basis whatsoever. Complaints were also made through Shri

S.P. Goyal, Member of Parliament to the CVC. However, the Member

of Parliament finally withdrew his complaint from the Power Ministry

on 28th February, 2009. It was also stated on behalf of Mr. R.N.

Nayak that the C.M.D., PGCI had forwarded the report of the internal

committee to the CVC along with his own comments and the CVC

after calling for the relevant records and after thorough examination

of the entire record granted vigilance clearance to Mr. R.N. Nayak on

31st March, 2009. Mr. Poddar handed over to us in the Court a brief

synopsis along with some documents. As per letter dated 31st March,

2009 handed over to us in the Court, the Commission had accorded

vigilance clearance to Mr. R.N. Nayak after consideration of his

candidature for the post of Director(Operations), PGCI. It is rather

strange that the petitioner who seems to have access to most of the

records and internal correspondence did not place before us this

letter dated 31st March, 2009. As per the synopsis handed over by

Mr. Poddar to us in Court, in April 2009, complaints were again

made to the CVC. The CVC again examined the matter and found

serious deficiencies in the report submitted by the C.M.D. of

respondent No.3. The findings and the report were found to be based

on incorrect statement of facts and the conclusions arrived at by the

committee constituted by the C.M.D. were found to be motivated. It

was also stated that the CVC had recorded that the entire exercise

have been initiated by vested elements. It was also stated that on

28th April, 2009 the CVC while rejecting the report of the committee

appointed by the C.M.D. pointed out serious deficiencies in the report

and took an adverse view against the C.M.D. for making deliberately

incorrect report to the CVC. The CVC has apparently sought an

explanation from the C.M.D. It was also stated by Mr. Poddar that

Mr. Sudip Kar who had been transferred on the basis of the written

information furnished to the CVC was also transferred back to his old

post and his transfer revoked. The counsel for Mr. R.N. Nayak also

submitted that the CVC had examined the matter thoroughly over

three times and cleared the name of Mr. R.N. Nayak. All the

allegations against him were found contrary to the record. The

complaints were specifically found to be motivated and the

complaints were found to be at the behest of some vested elements.

It is the contention of Mr. Poddar that undeterred by such findings of

the CVC the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court by way of

this petition styled as a PIL. He has also alleged that all the

documents annexed by the petitioner with the report have been

supplied by the office of the C.M.D. and have not been obtained

under Right to Information Act which establish that the petitioner is

merely a proxy litigant set up by third parties to settle personal

scores with Mr. R.N. Nayak. There has been no denial of these

submissions made by Mr. Podar except for the fact that today in the

Court Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

handed over to us a letter dated 21st April, 2009 issued by the CVC to

the petitioner stating that certain information asked for could not be

supplied to him under the RTI Act as it may impede the process of

investigation. It is also stated in the said letter that the information

could not be given till the matter was pending consideration by the

A.C.C. Without getting into the rival contentions and the merits of

the matter we may observe that as held by the Supreme Court in

Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349

public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great

care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely

careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly

privae malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking.

It to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for

delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of

public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products

of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong

or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal

vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a

body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the court

is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or

political motivation or other oblique consideration. As held by the

Supreme Court of India in Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2005)

5 SCC 136 easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence

to file misconceived and frivolous petition. The Supreme Court in the

said case also observed that in service matters PIL should not be

entertained and also took note of the fact that in PILs official

documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the

petitioner came to possess them.

3. It appears from what has been stated hereinabove that either

the matter has been duly investigated by the competent authorities or

is in the process of being investigated by the concerned authorities.

This is not a matter which persuades us to exercise our extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ

petition is accordingly dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 14, 2009 RS