Niloo Ranjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3261 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Date of decision: 22nd July, 2014

+                                W.P.(C) No.4323/2014

       NILOO RANJAN KUMAR                                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through:             Mr. Muneesh Malhotra, Adv. with
                                        Mr. Achin Mittal, Adv.
                                    Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Abhimanyu
                                        Singh, Adv. for UOI.
                                        Mr. T. Singhdev, Adv. for R-2.
                                        Mr. Praveen Khattar, Adv. for DMC.
                                        Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
                                        and Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                        Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv. for R-4.
                                        Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv. with Ms.
                                        Senjul Khanna, Adv. for CBSE.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks, (i) a direction to

the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the admission process

conducted by the respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad (UP);

(ii) a direction for appointment of a Committee to supervise the admission

process conducted by all private medical colleges; (iii) de-recognition of the

respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College as a medical institute providing

medical education; and, (iv) direction to the respondent no.2 Medical Council

of India to strike off the name of the respondent no.5 Renuka Gautam from the

medical register.

2. The petitioner claims to be working in the field of investigative

journalism, presently working with Jansatta as Senior Special Correspondent.

Though the petition purports to raise the issue of private medical colleges

admitting students who are not eligible for admission to the MBBS course but a

reading of the petition leaves no manner of doubt that the same is directed

primarily against the respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College and respondent

no.5 Ms. Renuka Gautam. Such petition filed in public interest and targeted at a

particular person always invites suspicion. The Supreme Court in Neetu Vs.

State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614 held that when a particular person is the

object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the Court has to be careful to see

whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a

private vendetta, personal grouse or some other malafide object. It was further

held that the High Court ought not to have entertained such a petition. The

dicta in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 that

PIL 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 and ugly private malice, vested interest and / or publicity seeking

is not lurking; it should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public

injury was reiterated.

3. We have asked the counsel for the petitioner as to what was the reason

for the petitioner to investigate the respondents no.4&5 in particular. No

document showing the process of investigation has been filed along with the

petition. No specific averment against any other college or any wrongful

admission made is found in the petition.

4. The counsel, except for stating that the petitioner while making

investigations learnt of respondents no.4&5, has no answer.

5. We may mention that even though this petition had come up for the first

time on 16th July, 2014 and there is no requirement of furnishing advance

copies to private respondents and there is no averment in the petition of having

done so but the senior counsel for the respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College

appeared and while we were putting questions to the counsel for the petitioner

informed that the petitioner has been blackmailing the respondent no.4 Santosh

Medical College and it is from the telephone calls made by the petitioner only

to the respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College that the respondent no.4

Santosh Medical College learnt of the same.

6. The counsel for the petitioner controverts by contending that it was rather

the respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College which was offering money to the

petitioner to not press the petition.

7. We need not go into the controversy any further. The same is enough for

not entertaining this petition and for dismissing the same. Dismissed. The

petitioner to in any future PIL filed by him annex a copy of this order.

8. However, the dismissal of this petition be not construed as our having put

imprimatur on the admission of the respondent no.5 and to not come in the way

of the authorities concerned if find any illegalities in respondent no.4 college or

in any other college in the admission process, from taking action with respect

thereto.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 22, 2014 pp