S.K. Chatterjee vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3568 Del

$~1.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO. 3923/2011

                                           Date of order: 27th July, 2011

        SK CHATTERJEE                       ..... Petitioner
                    Through Ms. Anisha Upadhyay,
                    Advocate.

                         versus

        UOI AND ORS.                                  ..... Respondents

Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Sonia Sharma & Mr. Mirza Aslam Beg, Mr. Bhagat Singh & Mr. Yash Wardhan Tiwari, Advocates for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar & Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocates for respondent No. 5.

Mr. Vijay Nair & Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates for respondent No. 6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes.

DIPAK MISRA, CJ.:

The petitioner, Mr. S.K. Chatterjee, describing himself as a

real estate consultant and a peace loving person, has prayed for

the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents as to why the compliance of

CVC Guidelines while awarding the Civil Contract by the Government Department/PSUs/State Government/Semi- Government Agencies shall be made mandatory and in return of the Rule and after hearing the Parties make the Rule absolute; and

(ii) May further be please to direct the Respondents to provide specific provision/criteria in the terms and conditions of the tender in view of the CVC Guidelines for awarding of Civil Contract especially for the Lead Members in case bidder is a Joint Venture or Consortium; and

(iii) May pass an order/direction for free, fair and impartial enquiry into the matter of grant of lease of Railway Land situated in Sarai rohilla-Kishanganj, New Delhi to M/s. Paresnath Developers Ltd. and on submission of report and on perusal may pass necessary and appropriate direction.

(iv) May further be please to direct the respondents to cancel the contract awarded without following the CVC Guidelines; and

(v) May further be pleased to pass such other and further order as may be deemed just and proper in the premises of this case."

2. It is submitted by Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, learned counsel

for the petitioner, that the respondents are under legal obligation

to comply with the CVC guidelines while awarding the civil

contracts but there has been a constant and consistent

departure from the same for unfathomable reasons as a

consequence of which the contracts are awarded in violation of

the guidelines. It is urged that non-following of the CVC

guidelines has resulted in award of civil contract in favour of the

respondent No. 6, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited.

3. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel, and Mr.

Amit Kumar, learned counsel who has entered appearance on

behalf of the respondent No. 5, the Rail Land Development

Authority, has submitted that the present Public Interest

Litigation does not even remotely pertain to any public interest

inasmuch as the petitioner, though has described himself as a

public spirited person, his personal interest is absolutely

ingrained and further the present case is an epitome of shadow

litigation. To substantiate the said submission, he has invited

our attention to the communication made by the petitioner to

various authorities, at pages 132-133 of the paper book. For the

sake of proper appreciation of the factual scenario, we think it

appropriate to reproduce the same in entirety:

"With reference to the above it has been observed in the RLDA Tenders opened on 11th November, 2010 which M/s Pareshnath Developer, New Delhi has been awarded the above Land at a price of Rs.1652 crores but very motivatedly the above Government Authority has dishonoured the major CVC guidelines Number 12-02-1-CTE-6 dated the

17th December, 2002 where clearly mentioned that the bidder should have a completion certificate of one similar completed work costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost in addition to the above, the criteria regarding satisfactory performance of work, personnel, establishment, plant, equipment, etc. may be incorporated according to the requirement of the project and it is for your information that the awarded company M/s Pareshnath Developers are not having the above credentials in their last year Annual Audited Balance Sheet.

On the other hand, the said Government Authority had awarded the said land to M/s ABW Infrastructure Ltd., Delhi in a open tender in the year 2007 where the company had paid Rs.39 crores to RLDA on Interest, Bank Guarantee and Other Fees accounts and had deposited Rs.75 crores to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under the instruction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to Delhi High Court dated 22nd July, 2010 where both the Councils were agreed and promised to stop the above Financial Bid which was executed on 11th November, 2010 even the Hon'ble Chief Justice had suggested to both the Councils to go for a mutual understanding to pay the Bidding amount of Rs.1026 crores and accordingly M/s ABW Infrastructure Ltd. submitted a revised Financial Proposal to pay the Principal amount to the Vice President of RLDA Mr. Pankaj Jain on 16th August, 2010. On execution of earlier award for the said land in favour of ABW Infrastructure Ltd. Suddenly the Real Estate Price had come down 40% through out the World and no financial institutions were prepared to finance on the Real Estate segment for the

last two and half years and councils of ABW Infrastructure Ltd. were pleased to convince the above fact to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court for the reason of non- payment of principal amount of Financial bid of Rs.1026 crores to RLDA in time but with a very malafide intention on the next hearing date the RLDA Councils were refuse to accept the agreed and deposited amount of Rs.75 crores and cancelled the revised Financial Proposal which was submitted on 16th August, 2010 to RLDA.

Sir, it is also mentioned in the CVC guidelines, Order No. OFF-1-CTE-1 (Pt.) V, dated 24th March, 2005 that the Commission has observed that some Notice Inviting Tenders have a clause that the Tender Application could be rejected without assigning any reason. These clauses are apparently incorporated in Tender enquiries to safeguard the interest of the organization in exceptional circumstances and to avoid any Legal dispute, in such cases. The Commission has emphasized that such a clause in the Bid documents does not mean that the Tender Accepting Authority is free to take the decision in an Arbitrary manner. He is bound to record clear, logical reason for any such rejection/recall of tenders on the file.

Sir, being a citizen of India and as well as a Real Estate Consultant it is my request to your goodself to look into the matter to identify the corrupt officers and investigate the above matter and pass an instruction to the Competent Authority to cancel the above Financial Bid instantly which was executed on 11th November, 2010 and give a fresh opportunity to the earlier qualifying bidder ABW Infrastructure Ltd. To complete the

above job."

4. It is noteworthy that ABW Infrastructure Limited and

another had preferred a writ petition before this Court forming

subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 13590/2009, which was

dismissed by the learned single Judge. Being dissatisfied, LPA

No. 264/2010 was preferred, which also did not meet the

success. The order passed in LPA No. 264/2010 was assailed

in SLP (Civil) No. 30927/2010 wherein their Lordships have

passed the following order:

"Upon being mentioned the Court made the following ORDER We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."

5. Thereafter, Review Petition (Civil) No. 2281/2010 was filed

wherein the following order came to be passed:

" We have carefully considered the Review Petition. Considering the facts and the legal submissions, we are of the opinion that the Review Petition does not have any merits. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed."

6. Thereafter, a Curative Petition (Civil) No. 23/2011 was filed

wherein their Lordships have passed the following order:

"We have gone through the curative petition

and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra, reported in 2002 [4] SCC 388. Hence, the curative petition is dismissed."

7. We have narrated the chronology of events and

reproduced the communication in entirety to highlight that the

petitioner had expressed immense interest in the case that was

decided and, in fact, had referred in his letter in detail about the

proceedings in the other case. We really fail to fathom how the

present litigation can be put into the compartment of Public

Interest Litigation. Indubitably, it has the contours and

characteristics of a personal interest litigation. That apart, it

seems that the petitioner is determined to espouse the cause of

a singular party. What interest he had/has is not disclosed. In

this context, we may refer with profit to a few passages from

Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC

349 which read as follows:

"4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an

important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant or poke one's nose into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janta Dal case (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 116. A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR1993 SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620.

11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have

been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death and facing the gallows under untold agony, persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for the glare of publicity break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of genuine litigants

and resultantly, they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.

12. 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. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory 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. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."

We have quoted in extenso from the aforesaid

pronouncement as we are inclined to think that the present

litigation nomenclature as a public interest litigation has been

initiated for personal interest or to project one's individual

financial interest in the guise of a public interest.

8. It is apt to note that public interest litigation or the

epistolary jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked if there is

a cause which is required to be fought or brought to be

adjudicated before a court of law pertaining to the grievance,

anguish or agony of people who cannot come to Court or cases

where greater public interest relating to environment, pollution,

fiscal irregularities, holding of public office without eligibility

criteria, protection of democratic values, etc. is involved can be

entertained. But, the present litigation has been filed as if the

petitioner has felt what the contesting parties could not achieve

by taking recourse to the due process of law, the same is

achievable by way of public interest litigation. The learned

counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instance

mentioned in the letter is a singular one as he could lay his

hands upon any other but there are many such instances. The

verification of antecedents of a person who comes to court in a

public interest litigation and his real concern for public interest

require keen scrutiny. On a deeper scrutiny and nuanced

appreciation of the documents brought on record, the personal

interest is writ large. As we find, the petitioner has felt that one

of the parties whose cause he had agitated had lost the battle

but he still has the indefatigable potentiality to carry on the

battle. The battle between the two private parties has been

metamorphosed into a public cause in an extremely maladroit

manner.

9. While so stating, we would have proceeded to reproduce

the formal part of the order that the writ petition is without any

substance, not being in the compartment of public interest

litigation and further to state the dismissal of it, but a battle in

futility or a battle in egocentric propensity has to have a price.

The petitioner who has thought himself to pave the path of

unwarranted heroics should pay a price for waste of the Court's

time and accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition with costs of

Rs.75,000/-. The said sum shall be deposited before the

Registrar General of this Court within a span of six weeks, failing

which proceedings for contempt shall be initiated against the

petitioner.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JULY 27, 2011 VKR/dk