Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Singh Kushwah vs Government Of India on 1 August, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 WP-18502-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 18502 of 2024
MANOJ SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Raj, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard on the question of admission.
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking
the following reliefs:
''(a) Immediate initiation of an independent inquiry into the causes
of delay in the completion of the construction project and
identification of the officers responsible for the lapse.
(b) Immediate initiation of a comprehensive and impartial
investigation into the alleged misuse of the public funds by
government officers within Archeological Department. This
investigation must be conducted by an independent body to ensure
transparency and accountability.
(c) Preservation of all relevant documents, records, and evidence
pertaining to the allocation and expenditure of public funds for the
project.
2 WP-18502-2024
(d) Imposition of appropriate disciplinary measures against the
erring officers found culpable of negligence of misconduct in their
duties, including but not limited to suspension, termination, and
initiation of legal proceedings as per applicable laws and
regulations.
(e) Adoption of corrective measures and oversight mechanisms to
prevent recurrence of such delays and mismanagement in future
construction projects and or misuse of public funds in government
department/agency.
(f) Transparent dissemination of information regarding the
progress of the construction project and the actions taken in
response to the delay, ensuring accountability and public trust in
government affairs.
(g) Proper action of blacklisting will be initiated against the
contractor (Sudharshan Engineering Works) and the present work
order issued in his favour be quashed and amount be recovered
accordingly.
(h) Allow my client to visit the site with immediate effect.''
2. Petitioner is a Journalist by profession, citizen of Indore and a
social worker who is working for the welfare of the society for the last few
years. The case of the petitioner is that a notice inviting tender was issued by
the Archaeology, Archives and Museum Department, Indore for conservation
and development of Lalbagh Palace Indore. The amount of bid was Rs.
10,03,50,545/-. As the respondent No. 6 was found successful, tender was
allotted and contract was signed between the parties. The period specified
for completion of the work was 24 months excluding rainy season. The said
contract also provided for penalty in case of failure in completion of work
within the said period. The construction project undertaken by the contractor
has experience significant delay resulting in substantial financial
implications for the government causing inconvenience to the public and
wasting of public money. Despite there being specific provision of penalty
3 WP-18502-2024
in the contract agreement as well as in the work allotment letter, the
government officials in collusion with the contractor has increased the time
duration without specifying the responsibilities and without imposing any
penalty on the contract. Petitioner gathered the aforesaid information under
the RTI Act and issued legal notice to the competent authorities seeking
appropriate action, but nothing has been done in the matter. Hence, this
petition.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State
opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has not given his
complete antecedents and has also not disclosed as to what public interest
work he has performed for the Society. Learned counsel for the respondents
has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and
Others[2019 (1) M.P.L.J. 75] to contend that the petitioner has failed to
produce on record to satisfaction of the Court such social work in last couple
of years in the area in respect of which Public Interest Litigation is involved.
Merely spending money like lawyer's fees from their own pocket does not
satisfy test of locus standi. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Pratap Singh (supra) ,
has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court involving Public Interest
Litigation in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and
others [(2010) 3 SCC 402] wherein the Apex Court has laid down certain
guidelines to be followed before exercising jurisdiction of Public Interest
4 WP-18502-2024
Litigation. The guidelines are as under :-
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bonafide
PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed
for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own
procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation,
it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly
formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and
discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who
have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules
within three months. The Registrar General of each
High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the RP
638/2017 Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to
the Secretary General of this court immediately
thereafter.
(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials
of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding
the correctness of the contents of the petition before
entertaining a PIL.
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial
public interest is involved before entertaining the
petition.
(6) The court should ensure that the petition which
involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must
be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure
that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm
or public injury. The court should also ensure that there
is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive
behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed
by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must
be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by
5 WP-18502-2024
adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous
petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous
considerations."
5 . Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present
petition as well none of the aforesaid guidelines are satisfied as laid down in
the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others
(supra). Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the
same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
7. This Court is in consonance with the submission of State counsel
that in the light of the judgment passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal
Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (supra), this public interest litigation is
not maintainable. So far as delay in the completion of contract is concerned,
it is a matter of inquiry by the Department.
8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, the instant
petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the
petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
