Mithlesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 2970 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                             Date of decision: 7th July, 2014
+                                W.P.(C) 1618/2014
       MITHLESH KUMAR SINGH                      ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with
                            Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh and Mr.
                            M.K. Singh, Advs.
                                        Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                 ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh,
                                        Advs. for R-1,3&4.
                                        Mr. Sachin Datta with Ms. Ritika
                                        Vhurani, Advs. for UOI.
                                        Mr. P.K. Sharma with Mr. Rakesh
                                        Kumar Sharma and Ms. Renu Malik,
                                        Advs. for R-6/CBI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition, filed by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeks (i) a

direction to the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Prime Minister Office,

Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Director, CBI and the Planning Commission of India

to provide the details of documents relating to purchase of jacks, appointment

of candidates in the Railway Recruitment Board, Patna, financial irregularities

in extension of railway line and scam in procurement of concrete sleepers in

Railways during the tenure of respondent no.7 Mr. Nitish Kumar as Union

Minister for Railways; and, (ii) a direction to the respondent no.6 Director, CBI

to register the case against the respondent no.7 and his other associates.

2. The petitioner, on the same facts had earlier also filed W.P.(C)

No.8919/2011 and which was dismissed vide order dated 21 st December, 2011,

accepting the version of the respondents that the matter had been referred to

CBI for investigation and the CBI had not found any substance in the matter

and had submitted report that no action was warranted in the case and which

report was ultimately accepted. The petitioner thereafter sought information

under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and then sought review of

the order of dismissal of the earlier writ petition on the ground that it was

misrepresented before this Court that the matter had been referred to the CBI or

that the CBI had not found any substance therein and which report was

accepted. The said review petition came up before this Court on 7 th December,

2012 when the counsel for the respondent Railways showed in confidence the

records brought to the Court to the Bench then hearing the matter and on

perusal thereof this Court recorded that the same disclosed that a CBI inquiry

was indeed conducted and the report of the CBI was placed before the Standing

Committee of the Railways. In view thereof the said review petition was

dismissed, as aforesaid on 7th December, 2012.

3. The petitioner again pursued his remedies under the RTI Act and on the

basis thereof claims that there is no record of the matter having been placed

before the Railway Board or having been enquired into / investigated by the

CBI. Pleading so, this writ petition has been filed.

4. This Court (in the order dated 7th December, 2012 of dismissal of the

review petition aforesaid) having observed that the records shown to it

disclosed that a CBI inquiry was indeed conducted and that the report of the

CBI was placed before the Standing Committee of the Railways, the contention

today, of the CBI inquiry having not been conducted and the report thereof

having not been placed before the Standing Committee of the Railways, cannot

be accepted. The petitioner is thus not entitled to second or third round of

litigation on the same aspect, as is being sought to be done.

5. We have otherwise also enquired from the senior counsel for the

petitioner as to why the petitioner is targeting the respondent no.7 for the last

nearly three years by filing one proceeding after another and what is the source

of knowledge and information of the petitioner relating to affairs qua which

commission of offences is alleged.

6. No plausible answer has been forthcoming. We suspect the petition to be

motivated and not in public interest and are not inclined to entertain the same

on this ground also.

7. 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 officers 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.

8. We have enquired from the senior counsel that why the petitioner in the

last three years has not taken either of the aforesaid measures.

9. Again no response is forthcoming.

10. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. We refrain from

imposing any costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 07, 2014/pp