Delhi High Court
Forum Of Sc And St Legislators And ... vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ... on 27 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 1698/2017
% 27th February, 2017
FORUM OF SC AND ST LEGISLATORS AND PARLIAMENTARIANS
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajendra Singhvi, Advocate.
versus
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. V.M. Koura, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr.
W.A. Noor, Advocate for R-2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by a non-legal person and which is
Forum of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Legislators and
Parliamentarians. Petitioner pleads that E-8 Level officers of the respondent
no. 1/Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) are illegally not being
considered for promotion by the respondent no. 1.
2. In case certain employees are illegally not being considered for
promotion, then only such persons have locus standi to approach the Court
and not a non-legal person/entity being the petitioner, inasmuch as,
individual persons of a non-legal entity such as the petitioner can claim that
they would not be bound by a judgment in this case and nor can this Court
issue directions to individual members of the petitioner to file affidavits or
compliance affidavits, etc etc.
3. It is a person who has a locus standi who can approach the
Court and not someone else on his behalf, more so in service matters law
where it is the law that Public Interest Litigation cannot be filed. In similar
circumstances, this Court vide judgment dated 10.1.2017 dismissed W.P.
(C) No. 9041/2016 titled as Central Bank Retirees Grievances Cell
"Kasht-Haran" Vs. Union of India and Another, and which judgment
reads as under:-
"C.M. Appl. No. 36583/2016 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 9041/2016
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioner which is said to be an NGO being a trust registered
under the Indian Trust Act, 1882. The petitioner is "Central Bank Retirees
Grievances Cell".
2. In this writ petition the petitioner claims the relief of directions to
be issued to all public sector banks that in case of a penalty of
removal/dismissal from services is imposed then the outstanding leave
should be allowed to be encashed and be paid along with interest.
3. It is a well settled law in view of a catena of judgments of the
Supreme Court that in service matters a Public Interest Litigation petition
does not lie. One such recent judgment of the Supreme Court is in the
case of Bholanath Mukherjee and Others Vs. Ramakrishna Mission
Vivevkananda Centenary College and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 464.
4. There is a reason why in service matters a writ petition cannot be
filed on behalf of an association for various individual persons because if
any action for contempt has to be taken against individual persons such
action cannot be taken by the Court against individual persons who are not
before the Court and are only being represented by a body/association,
such as in the present case.
5. Since the petitioner is not a living person and is only an NGO,
rights of such an NGO are different from the rights of an individual
person, and rights of an individual person as per service matters law can
only be enforced by such individual persons by seeking appropriate writs
of certiorari, mandamus and/or any other appropriate order. Petitioner can
only have locus standi if any personal rights of the petitioner were involved as
an NGO but not on account of petitioners pleadings to be representing
thousands and lakhs of employees of public sector banks.
6. After arguments I have put it to the counsel for the petitioner that the
aforesaid legal position is an settled legal position and therefore the present
writ petition, since is not maintainable, can be withdrawn with liberty to each
individual employee of the Bank who seeks rights to file appropriate
independent proceedings, but the counsel for the petitioner after instructions
says that a judgment be passed.
7. In view of the above discussion the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner is one where petitioner clearly has no locus standi, in service
matters a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable, individual employees
of the banks are not before this Court and nor can be because thousands and
lakhs of persons cannot come together as petitioners in one case.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition being wholly misconceived is
accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with
Friendicoes, No.271 & 273, Defence Colony, Flyover Market, Jangpura Side,
New Delhi-110024, within ten days from today."
4. In view of the above, the petitioner has no locus standi because
the persons who would be affected adversely are the only persons who have
locus standi to approach this Court and which individuals are not petitioners in
this writ petition. I may note that under Section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 injunction cannot be granted to a person who has no personal interest
in the matter. Petitioner being only a non-legal person does not have any
personal interest, and the personal interest would be of individuals who are
employees of respondent no. 1.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as petitioner is
found not to have locus standi. Liberty is granted, however, for those persons
who would be directly affected to approach this Court by filing an appropriate
writ petition or such persons may file appropriate independent proceedings.
FEBRUARY 27, 2017/AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
