Delhi High Court
R L Makhija vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 18 October, 2019
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th October, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 10324/2017
R L MAKHIJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Rai, Adv.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sandeep Bajaj and Mr.Naman
Tandon, Advs. for R-1/SDMC
Mr. Jagjit Singh, Adv. for R-2
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing
Counsel (Criminal) for State
with Mr. Anand Thumbayil, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 18.10.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the
following prayers:
"a. Issue order or direction to the Respondent No.1 to
investigate the embezzlement of public money by the
advertisement department/SDMC while awarding the
advertisement rights to the Respondent No.2, identify the
negligent Respondent Officials responsible for the same,
take the necessary departmental steps, and to place the
details of investigation and steps taken before the Hon'ble
Court, in a time bound manner,
b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ
and directing the Respondent No. 2 to provide the details of
bank accounts and accounts statement to the Vigilance
Department of the respondent No.1, to have the same
investigated, and place the same before the Hon'ble Court,
c. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ
and direction thereby directing the Respondent No.1 and
No.2 to place the complete details of advertising tenders bid
and the amounts deposited and balance dues in each such
tender till it's completion, from the year 2006 till current
date, by way of an affidavit before the Hon'ble Court,
d. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ
and direct the Respondent No. 2 and No.3 to deposit the dues
as per Tender records with the Registrar of this Hon'ble
Court, till the time the investigation is completed by the
Respondent No.1,
e. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ
and Direct institution of an independent inquiry from the
competent central investigation agencies for finding the
reasons for large scale deviations from the settled procedure
while awarding the advertising tenders, and whether all
dues in such other tenders have been recovered in full by the
Respondent No.1, and place the report before the Hon'ble
Court in a time bound manner.
d. Issue The Writ, Order Or Directions In The Nature Of
Mandamus Or Any Other Appropriate Writ, Order Or
Directions to the Concerned Respondent Authorities to
initiate major penalty departmental proceedings against the
concerned Respondent officials who were malafidely and
seriously negligent in discharge of their duties and
responsibilities.
e. Any other order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may
deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances in this
case."
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that, this is absolutely a
private interest litigation. This is not a public interest litigation at all.
3. It appears that the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) had
issued notice inviting tenders for unipols (advertisement display-boards)
at 11 different sites. Thereafter, after receiving bids, the highest bidder
was given a contract, who is Respondent No.2.
4. Much has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner about
the breaches committed by Respondent No.2 like non-deposit of monthly
license fees and non-payment of advertisement tax to the Respondent
No.1.
5. Thus, it appears that this petitioner is alleging breach of conditions
of contract between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2.
6. The breach of conditions by Respondent No.2 cannot be
adjudicated in this writ petition as a public interest litigation.
7. Moreover, it is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that as many as four suits being Civil Suit Nos. 233/2018; 243/2018;
235/2018; and 236/2018 are pending adjudication between Respondent
No.1 and Respondent No.2.
8. Thus, already the suits are pending between Respondent No.1 and
Respondent No.2. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition
as a public interest litigation.
9. It also appears from the facts that no explanation could be given by
learned counsel for the petitioner that how this petitioner has obtained
internal noting which is reflected at page 34 of this writ petition.
10. This petitioner could not match the information sought for under
Right to Information Act, 2005 and the document which is at page 34 of
this writ petition.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had
inspected some documents and that is how he found out the document
which is at page 34.
12. Thus, it appears that the internal noting has been obtained by this
petitioner by unlawful means.
13. This is absolutely a private interest litigation or a blackmailing type
of litigation.
14. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only), to be deposited by the petitioner with the
Delhi State Legal Service Authority within a period of two weeks from
today.
15. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Secretary, Delhi State Legal Service Authority.
16. We hereby direct Respondent No.1 to take into consideration
whether any criminal complaint can be filed against this petitioner for
using illegal means for obtaining the document at page no. 34 of this writ
petition and for any other such documents.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 18, 2019/dsn
