Shri Jagdish Chander vs New Delhi Municipal Council
2009 Latest Caselaw 2291 Del

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+               W.P.(C) No. 9365/2009 & CM No.7186/2009


        SHRI JAGDISH CHANDER                              ..... Petitioner
                       Through:        Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate.

                     versus

        NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL            ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate.

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

% 27.05.2009

1. The present petition is styled as a "Public Interest Litigation".

The principle grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that

there is an increase in pressure on available parking spaces in

Connaught Place as there is a continues and constant increase of

vehicles. It is contended by the petitioner that a huge parking lot

behind Hindustan Times Building had been closed by the respondent

for constructing a multi level parking site. The construction at the

site is going on at snail space, which added to the misery of vehicle

users who used to park their vehicles at the said area. The

respondent, as per the petitioner, had added to the problem of the

vehicle owners at the aforesaid area by restricting the parking area

upto 7022 square meters instead of 36762 square meters. As per the

petitioner, parking sites near Hanuman Mandir and Baba Kharak

Singh Road had already been closed for constructing a multi level

parking and the respondents were now inviting fresh tenders

confining the parking area to 7022 square meters. The said action of

the respondents is alleged to be arbitrary as drastic reduction of area

is going to cause harassment to the vehicle owners. The petitioner

has prayed inter alia for the relief of staying the operation of the

tender dated 15th May, 2009.

2. The counsel for respondent NDMC, on the other hand,

submitted that the present petition was a motivated petition filed by

the existing tenderers to whom parking spaces had been earlier

allotted as they did not want fresh proposals/tenders to be floated

and wanted to continue to enjoy the benefits of the contracts for

parking sites earlier allotted to them.

3. When we asked the counsel for the petitioner as to what was

the petitioner's locus and interest in filing the present petition, the

only answer that we got was that though the petitioner had his

business in Daryaganj, but he frequently visited Connaught Place

and was thus interested in adequate parking spaces being available

in the area.

4. It has been time and again held by the Supreme Court that

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

private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not

lurking. As held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs.

State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349, the courts must be

careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who

approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or

private motive or other oblique consideration. The petitions of such

busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold,

and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

5. What surprises us even further is that how can the petitioner

who claims to be a public spirited citizen actually ask for stay of the

tender dated 15th May, 2009. If this prayer of the petitioner was to be

allowed, it would further add to the parking problem and cause

inconvenience to the public at large. We fail to see how and why

would a public spirited person really concerned about the problem of

parking ask for stay of a tender for allotment of parking areas.

Clearly, the entire story of parking area being reduced for various

reasons is a camouflage to actually fight a proxy war on behalf of the

existing tenderers who do not want fresh tenders to be submitted for

parking areas in question and want to continue to enjoy the existing

benefits and largesse awarded by the State.

6. The present writ petition is clearly an abuse of process of law

and has been filed with oblique considerations. The writ petition is

liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Accordingly, we dismiss

the present writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The pending

application stands disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 27, 2009 sb