Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 9396 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of decision: 17th December, 2015

+           W.P.(C) 3610/2015 & CM No.6436/2015 (for directions).
      PRABHU DAYAL DANDRIYAL                                ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.
                                 versus
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                              ..... Respondents
                   Through:          Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC and Naginder
                                     Benipal, Adv. for R-1 to 3.
                                     Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh,
                                     Advs. for R-5.
                                     Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, SSP with Mrs.
                                     Monica Gupta, Adv. for R-8.
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 (PIL) seeks a

mandamus to the respondents no.1&2 i.e. Ministry of Defence of the

Government of India and the Defence Research & Development

Organisation (DRDO) to take appropriate action to prosecute the respondent

no.4 Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena working as Director in Defence Materials &

Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE) Kanpur, Uttar

Pradesh and other officers working in the said office of DMSRDE, under the

Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 on the basis of information

contained in the 12 complaints made by the petitioner and to conduct

consequential investigation in accordance with law.

2. Finding that the petition is directed against a particular official i.e. the

respondent no.4 and that the petitioner is a retired official of the DRDO and

being apprehensive that the petition in the garb of public interest, may be to

serve the personal interest and personal vendetta of the petitioner, we,

instead of issuing formal notice of the petition asked the learned ASG

appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 on advance notice, to inform to us of

the action if any taken on the complaints and otherwise in the matter.

3. We were informed that a PIL being PIL No.29442/2015 of the High

Court of Allahabad filed by one Mr. Navin Prakash Gupta with similar

allegations was dismissed on 21st May, 2015 observing that "No valid case

has been made out for the exercise of the jurisdiction in the public interest.

The petition appears to be filed to pursue extraneous ends and is not a

genuine recourse to the jurisdiction in a PIL".

4. The learned ASG further confirmed that a Fact Finding Committee

had been constituted to go into the complaints of the petitioner as well as

others against the respondent no.4 and the Report of the said Committee was

handed over to us in a sealed cover.

5. We have opened the sealed cover and have perused the Reports of the

Fact Finding Committee constituted to look into the complaints.

6. The counsel for the petitioner of course contended that no action is

being taken thereafter also. Reliance was placed by him on Lalita Kumari

Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 to contend that all

Reports are to be made public and action on the basis thereof to be taken

immediately.

7. The respondents are found to have acted on the basis of the

complaints of the petitioner by constituting the Fact Finding Committee and

which Committee has rendered its Report and we have no doubt that the

respondents no.1 to 3 would expeditiously take action in accordance with

law with respect thereto. This Court cannot allow the tool of PIL to be

misused for intra office rivalries and to enable one officer to score over

another, especially when the authorities concerned are not found to be

lacking. Of course in a given case, considering the gravity of the matter the

Court may deem it appropriate to expedite the action and/or issue other

directions in that respect. We however, do not find the present to be such a

case.

8. Supreme Court in Sachindanand Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal

(1987) 2 SCC 295 held that in a public interest petition, Court in order to

check and prevent misuse of remedy ought to examine the motive if any of

the petitioner and asked itself the question, "is there anything more than

what meets the eye". Similarly, in Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh

Samiti Vs. State of U.P. (1990) 4 SCC 449 it was held that where it appears

that the PIL is only a cloak to feed any grudge or enmity, the same should

not only be refused but also strongly discouraged. Yet again in Gurpal

Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 5 SCC 136 it was held 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, an ugly private malice, vested interest is not lurking. It was

held that the attractive brand name of PIL should not be allowed to be used

for suspicious products of mischief. The Supreme Court held that when a

particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as a PIL, the

Court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of PIL is really

intended to unleash personal grouse. It was reiterated that in service matters

PIL cannot be filed.

9. We therefore dispose of this petition with a direction to the

respondents to take the Report of the Fact Finding Committee to its logical

conclusion.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

DECEMBER 17, 2015 „pp‟