Delhi High Court
Bridge And Roof Company (India) ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5677/2016
% 2nd January, 2017
BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. EXECUTIVES'
ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Mehta and Mr. Rajat
Sehgal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Abhilash Mathur and Mr. Manoj
Pant, Advocates for R-4.
Mr. Ashish Mohan, Adv. for R-6 & 7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.47860/2016 (early hearing)
This application is allowed in view of the fact that issues in this case
are covered by the judgment dated 6.1.2015 in W.P.(C) No.1574/2014 filed
by the same petitioner and titled as Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd.
Executives' Association Vs. M.K.Singh & Ors.
CM stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 5677/2016
1. In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the challenge is laid to the appointment of respondent
no.5/Sh. S.S. Rawat to the post of the Director (Project Management) of the
respondent no.4/company.
2. The petitioner which is an association, and not a person, cannot
be appointed as a Director (Project Management).
3. In the judgment dated 6.1.2015 in W.P.(C) 1574/2014, the
following ratio has been laid down:-
(i) In service matters, it is settled law that there cannot be public
interest litigation petition i.e in service matters a writ petition must be filed
by the concerned person whose rights are affected or whose rights are
sought to be vindicated. There is a clear cut distinction between an
individual who has a separate legal persona for enforcement of his legal
rights and as differentiated from an association of whom such an individual
would be a member, and which distinction is vital as per the law as
applicable to such writ petition. It is trite that a writ of certiorari/mandamus,
as prayed for by the petitioner in this case, can only be claimed for
vindication of personal rights and an association does not have personal
rights merely because some members of association would also claim the
rights in their individual capacity. Surely an association is bound to have
individual members, but on that ground it cannot be argued that such
individual members would have personal interest to maintain a writ petition
inasmuch as besides such interested persons association will have dozens
and dozens of other persons who would not have personal interest in the
matter. It is for this reason the Supreme Court has consistently laid down
the law that in service matters there cannot be a Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) i.e an enforcement of rights of others by some other persons and it is
only specific individual persons who can come to the Court for enforcement
of their rights. This writ petition therefore does not lie for this reason which
has also been decided in the earlier judgment dated 6.1.2015 and which is
that a writ of certiorari/mandamus can only be claimed by the affected
individual person.
(ii) The second aspect decided in the earlier judgment dated
6.1.2015 was that a writ of quo warranto cannot be granted unless there are
found in the writ petition averments of violation of statutory provision(s). I
have gone through the writ petition, and I have also queried the counsel for
the petitioner to show me averments and cause of action in the writ petition,
as to which is the statutory provision which is violated, and hence, a writ
petition seeking a writ of quo warranto will lie but no such cause of action
is found to be laid in the writ petition. At this stage itself I must hasten to
add that merely because the relief clause in this writ petition does not use
the expression 'quo warranto' does not mean that the present writ petition
does not seek the relief of a writ of quo warranto, inasmuch as, the first
relief is for questioning the appointment of respondent no.5/Sh. S.S. Rawat
as a Director (Project Management) of the respondent no.4/company and
hence this relief clause is clearly seeking relief in the nature of a writ of quo
warranto.
This writ petition therefore with respect to relief (a) and for related
reliefs for questioning the appointment of respondent no.5/Sh. S.S. Rawat
will not lie for seeking the relief of quo warranto in the absence of
averments of violation of one or more statutory provisions.
(iii) The third aspect which has been decided in the earlier judgment
dated 6.1.2015 in W.P.(C) 1574/2014 is that an association such as the
petitioner or any third person who does not have direct interest may
approach the Court by means of filing of a PIL to seek a writ of declaration
as regards disentitlement of a person to hold a particular post, but
admittedly, the present writ petition is not filed as a public interest litigation
petition for seeking a writ of declaration as regards invalidity of
appointment of respondent no.5 as a Director (Project Management) of the
respondent no.4/company.
4. In fact the earlier judgment dated 6.1.2015 in W.P.(C)
1574/2014, filed by the same petitioner which has filed the present petition,
decides the very same issues of maintainability of this writ petition, and in
fact I am surprised that the petitioner in spite of the earlier judgment passed
on 6.1.2015 in W.P.(C) 1574/2014 has yet initiated another litigation in
June, 2016 during the summer vacations period of this Court, although, to
the knowledge of the writ petitioner, till the judgment dated 6.1.2015 in
W.P.(C) 1574/2014 stands, the present writ petition would not be
maintainable.
5. In view of the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is
dismissed by adopting the ratio of the judgment dated 6.1.2015 in W.P.(C)
1574/2014.
CM No.47857/2016 (U/O I Rule 10 CPC by R-6 and 7)
This application is not pressed and liberty is granted as prayed for to
respondent nos. 6 and 7 to file appropriate independent proceedings.
CM stands disposed of.
JANUARY 02, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
