Delhi High Court
Md. Ehraz Zafar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 17 February, 2022
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1802/2022 & C.M.No.5170/2022
MD. EHRAZ ZAFAR ..... Petitioner
Through Petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kirtiman Singh CGSC with Mr.
Waize Ali Noof ADV. for
Respondent for UOI.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. A.
C. Mishra & Ms. Elana Saleem and
Mr. Amit Gupta Advocates for
Respondent 3 (DGH).
% Date of Decision: 17th February, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present Public Interest Petition has been filed challenging the Tender
Invitations issued by Public Sector Undertakings and other registered
Corporates/Companies, including Respondent No.3, for empanelment of a
Law Firm on the basis of money/turn-over criteria as ultra vires the
Advocates Act, 1961. Petitioner also seeks a direction to Respondent No.1
to formulate a new uniform guideline for engagement and empanelment of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.02.2022
21:28:53
lawyers/advocates.
3. Petitioner, who appears in person, states that Directorate General of
Hydrocarbons under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas at its
website had published an 'E-Tender for Empanelment of Law Firms for a
Period of three years on Open National Competitive Bidding Basis', wherein
the eligibility criteria as mentioned under the head 'Rejection Criteria'
clearly stipulates that the Law Firm bidding for empanelment should have
average annual turnover of at least INR 50 Crores in the last three Financial
Years ending 31st March, 2021 (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21). He submits
that setting down such an economic criteria for eligibility infringes the
Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner as well as other similarly situated
persons as conferred under Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
4. The settled principle of law is that an aggrieved person must approach
the Court. The standing doctrine characteristic is that a potential litigant
must be injured by the action it is challenging. Standing for individuals has
been relaxed by the Indian Courts by entertaining Public Interest Litigation
in the event, the person aggrieved is too poor or does not have the means to
approach the Court. In fact in a Public Interest Litigation case, there need be
no litigant. The concept of Public Interest Litigation is primarily linked to
the enforcement of social and economic rights in India.
5. In the present instance, it is not the case of the Petitioner that he
wanted to apply under the E-Tender and due to the eligibility criteria, he was
prevented from applying. The petitioner claims that he has filed the present
Public Interest Litigation trying to raise a public cause. However, this Court
is of the view that the 'persons aggrieved' in the present case are lawyers or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.02.2022
21:28:53
law firms, who appear in Courts daily. They are fully familiar with the
practice and procedure of the Court and have access to the Court all the
time.
6. Consequently, this Court is of the view that it would not be proper or
appropriate to relax the standing doctrine and entertain a Public Interest
Litigation on the present cause.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. This Court
clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 17, 2022
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.02.2022
21:28:53
