S.S. Chawla vs Central Vigilance Commission And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4764 Del

Citation : 2013 Latest Caselaw 4764 Del
Judgement Date : 11 October, 2013

Delhi High Court

S.S. Chawla vs Central Vigilance Commission And ... on 11 October, 2013

Author: Manmohan

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

+      W.P.(C) 3194/2013

       S.S. CHAWLA                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       In person
                          versus
       CENTRAL VIGILANCE
       COMMISSION AND ORS.               ..... Respondents
                    Through:             Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Advocate for
                                         UOI.
                                         Mr. Abir Phukan with Mr. Rayjith
                                         Mrk, Advocates for R-2 and 3.


                                   Reserved on :     09th October, 2013
%                                  Date of Decision: 11th October, 2013

        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                             JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J:

1. Present writ petition has been filed in public interest by an employee in accounts department of respondent no. 2, who claims to be a whistle blower.

2. Petitioner who appeared in person stated that the action of respondent no. 2 in issuing gifts and/or cash coupons on the eve of 48th Annual General Meeting had resulted in a loss of Rs. 3 lacs to the public exchequer. He further alleged that respondent no. 2 had transferred its "inconvenient" employees to a resource division where employees were paid salaries

without any work being assigned to them. He submitted that salaries paid to such employees resulted in further loss to public exchequer.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the present petition had been filed by a disgruntled employee who had already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. He pointed out that a previous writ petition W.P.(C) No. 8884/2011 titled Sanchar Times Vs. Union of India and others containing similar allegations had already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd February, 2012, and even a Special Leave Petition against the said order had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 5th October, 2012.

4. It is settled law that a person prompted by personal gain or any oblique consideration has no locus standi. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle and even held that howsoever genuine a cause brought before a court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bona fides and credentials are in doubt; no trust can be placed by the court on a mala fide applicant in a public interest litigation.

5. Since in the present instance petitioner has already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against respondent no. 2, this Court is of the view that a public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable.

6. The Vigilance Division after considering the petitioner's complaint regarding wasteful expenditure in NBCC has concluded "The above matter

seems to be pertaining to an administrative nature and does not have a vigilance angle, therefore, it is proposed that the complaint may be dealt administratively."

7. This Court has also perused the file of the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8884/2011 and it finds that both the allegations made by the petitioner in the present writ petition formed a part of the allegations made in W.P.(C) 8884/2011. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 22nd February, 2012 vide the following order :-

"When this matter came up for hearing on 11.1.2012, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 10 made submission that the petition was motivated and could not be entertained as public interest litigation. He also had pointed out that earlier, identical writ petition filed by one Ram Bahadur Singh [W.P.(C) No.5075/2011] ON 20.7.2011 had been dismissed.

Having regard to the nature of allegation made in this petition, without prejudice to the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mehta, we called upon him to submit in brief the outcome of the investigations into the complaints in sealed cover. He has produced the status of the complaint lodged by CVO which are the subject matter of the present writ petition. Perusal thereof shows that most of these complaints are examined either by CVO or by NBCC. Many complaints are found to be without any merit and have been closed after thorough examination. Some of the complaints are still pending consideration at the hands of concerned authorities.

Reading of this report makes it clear that various complaints submitted, received or being received are given consideration at the hands of the concerned authority. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to take the matter as public interest litigation and entertain this petition.