Raj Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2872 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                               Date of decision: 1st July, 2014

+                                W.P.(C) No.3572/2014

       RAJ KUMAR SHARMA                                     ..... Petitioner
                   Through:                Mr. Aseem Mehrota, Adv.

                                    Versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. A.K. Gautam, Adv. for R-1&2.

Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Adv. for R-3.

Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for AICTE.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed as a

Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks:

(a) the issuance of a writ of quo-warranto removing the respondent

no.5 Prof. S.S. Mantha from the position of Chairman, the

respondent no.6 Dr. M.K. Hada, from the position of Adviser

(Approval) and the respondent no.7 Dr. S.G. Bhirud, from the

position of Adviser-I & CVO of the All India Council for

Technical Education (AICTE);

(b) a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 Union of India

(UOI) to re-constitute the Selection Committee for filling up the

posts of Technical Education (Financial Adviser and Group 'A'

Technical Posts);

(c) a direction for appointment of Chairman and other members of the

Board of Studies of AICTE on the basis of All India Selection;

(d) a direction for filling up the posts in the AICTE on regular basis;

(e) a direction commanding the Comptroller and Auditor General of

India to look into the accounts of the respondent no.4 AICTE; and,

(f) an inquiry into the acts of the respondents no.5 to 7 by an

independent agency like the CBI.

2. The Supreme Court, recently in Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad

Mahto (2010) 9 SCC 655 has reiterated that except for a writ of quo warranto,

PIL is not maintainable in service matters. A writ of quo warranto can only be

issued when the appointment is contrary to statutory provision.

3. The petitioner, a resident of Agra, claims to be a law graduate. There is

no explanation whatsoever of the basis of his knowledge of the facts pleaded in

the petition or of his concern with the affairs of the AICTE. It is not as if the

petitioner is involved in the field of education or has been regularly taking steps

in public interest for filling up the lacunae in the system. When such an

unconcerned person files a petition directed at someone, purportedly in public

interest, the same raises doubts.

4. Our doubts in the present case are not misplaced. The senior counsel for

the respondent AICTE appearing on advance notice brings to our attention the

order dated 09.07.2012 in W.P.(C) No.3934/2012 filed by one Braj Vikas Party

and has also handed over in Court a copy of the said writ petition. It is pointed

out that W.P.(C) No.3934/2012 was filed impugning the order dated

20.03.2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No.923/2012

and which in turn was filed for quashing of the appointment then of the said

respondent no.5 Prof. S.S. Mantha as the acting Chairman of the AICTE and of

the respondent no.6 Dr. M.K. Hada and the respondent no.7 Dr. S.G. Bhirud as

Advisers of the AICTE. The CAT in its order dated 20.03.2012 held the OA

No.923/2012 to be not maintainable. W.P.(C) No.3934/2012 preferred

thereagainst was on 09.07.2012 withdrawn after some arguments.

5. The counsel who represents the petitioner before us was also the counsel

for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3934/2012 before this Court as well as before

the CAT. Notwithstanding the same, the factum of the proceeding before CAT

and / or of filing of W.P.(C) No.3934/2012 is not disclosed in the present

petition.

6. The counsel for the petitioner admits his mistake and states that he will

amend the petition. However no reason for such a mistake, except calling it a

mistake, is stated.

7. We do not expect such a mistake from the advocates of this Court. The

principles qua PILs are now sufficiently laid down. Rules in that regard have

also been made and the same mandate a complete disclosure. The petitioner

admittedly did not make the disclosure. Such non-disclosure is not found to be

innocent. The senior counsel for the respondent AICTE points out that though

the same Advocate appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3934/2012 had

sought liberty to file a PIL on the same cause of action but that liberty was not

given by the Court. It is perhaps for this reason only that this petition, instead

of being filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3934/2012, has been filed by the

present petitioner who as aforesaid has not disclosed his concern with the

subject purported to be flagged.

8. It is evident that the petition is motivated. Of course, the reason for such

motivation cannot be known to us. The petition is obviously at the behest of

some vested interest. The said finding is sufficient for us to dismiss this

petition. The Supreme Court in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha

Vs. Dhobei Sahoo (2014) 1 SCC 161 has taken note of PILs being misutilized

to vindicate vested interests for the propagated public interest and of some

persons, who describe themselves as pro bono publico, having approached the

Court challenging grant of promotion, fixation of seniority etc. in respect of

third parties and the need for the Courts to allow the use of the weapon of PILs

with care, caution and circumspection.

9. While so dismissing the petition, we also impose costs of Rs.20,000/-

payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers' Social Security and

Welfare Fund, New Delhi. A copy of this order be also forwarded to the said

Fund.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

JULY 01, 2014 'gsr'..