Vishwas Bhamburkar vs Uoi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2874 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                       Date of decision: 1st July, 2014
+                          W.P.(Crl.) No.1147/2014

        VISHWAS BHAMBURKAR                         ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Petitioner in person.
                                     Versus
        UOI & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents
                          Through:     Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary with Mr.
                                       Saqib, Mr. Akshay Chandra & Mr.
                                       Ravjyot Singh, Advs. for UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

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

public interest litigation seeks a direction for registration of a FIR under

Sections 109, 110, 111, 119, 120, 120(b), 121, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 193,

397, 403, 406, 408, 409, 417, 478, 420 of the IPC and investigation thereof by

the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

2. The petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act

2005, had sought authenticated photocopies of the project report regarding

"Development of Ayurvedic Health Resort and Herbal Garden at Vagamon" as

well as the notings on the Ministry of Tourism file with respect thereto. As per

the petitioner, the said project report document was submitted by Department

of Tourism, Government of Kerala to the Ministry of Tourism. According to

Ministry of Tourism, the said project report was not received. The petitioner,

before the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) produced a photocopy of

the said project report document having signatures of various officials of the

Ministry of Tourism and the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry

of Tourism confirmed those to be the signatures of the officials of the Ministry

of Tourism. However the Ministry of Tourism still insisted that in its records

the said report was not available. The CIC directed the Secretary, Ministry of

Tourism to enquire into the matter. A fact finding enquiry held concluded

beyond reasonable doubt that the original project report document was not

available in the Ministry of Tourism.

3. The respondent No.1 filed W.P.(C) No.3660/2012 in this Court against

the order of the CIC and in which a fresh direction was made for enquiry.

Though the petitioner states that he is not aware of the outcome of the

direction issued by this Court but the counsel for the respondents appearing on

advance notice has handed over in the Court a copy of the Report dated 6 th

November, 2013 which also records that it cannot be concluded beyond

reasonable doubt whether the project report document for the project

"Development of Ayurvedic Health Resort and Herbal Garden at Vagamon" as

submitted by the Stated Tourism Department of Kerala vide its letter dated 16th

October, 2006 was the same whose photocopy had been provided by the

petitioner before the CIC; it is further recorded that the matter being old and

with two of the officers who are impleaded as respondents no.2&3 herein

having expressed their inability to recollect anything at this point of time,

having already retired, nothing conclusive could be said.

4. The petitioner now wants FIR to be registered as into the missing project

report document.

5. Though the petitioner does not claim any particular interest in the

aforesaid project but it intrigues us as to why the petitioner, who otherwise

claims nothing to do with the project, would start making enquiry about a

particular project and about a particular report. The petition appears to have

been filed for some oblique hidden motives rather than in public interest. We

are therefore not inclined to entertain the same. Even otherwise it has been held

in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 that the High Courts in

exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not

encourage rushing to the Court against non-registration of FIRs, the remedy

whereagainst is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3)

Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. and if despite

that the grievance persists, to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. and if still dissatisfied, to file a criminal complaint under Section 200

Cr.P.C.

6. Therefore there is thus no merit in the petition which is dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 01, 2014 pp..