COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
WP (PIL) No.02/2022
Sushil Rai Vs State of Sikkim & Ors.
WP (PIL) No.02/2022
SUSHIL RAI PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS. RESPONDENT (S)
For Petitioner : Mr. Thupden Youngda, Advocate with Mr. Purab
Wangdi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Addl. Advocate General with
Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Asst. Govt. Advocate.
Date: 13/12/2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
...
JUDGMENT : (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice)
This petition is sought to be moved as a Public Interest Litigation by one
Sushil Rai. The petition was affirmed and filed on 02nd November, 2022. The
issue of "public interest" sought to be brought to the notice of this Court is with
regard to the Government of Sikkim's decision to award supply of medicines and
consumables for the year 2021 to only five vendors, excluding others. The
contentious memo which the writ petitioner seeks to refer to, in this regard, is
the memo dated 22nd June, 2020.
When we took up this matter on 24th November, 2022 -- while adjourning
the matter till today -- we had requested the learned Additional Advocate
General to take instructions from his clients in the meanwhile.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned
Additional Advocate General submits, on instructions, that Sushil Rai, the writ
petitioner is just a proxy. In fact, the wife of the learned advocate for the
petitioner -- who is appearing in this matter -- is a vendor/supplier of medicines
Page 1 of 2 COURT NO.1 HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK Record of Proceedings
WP (PIL) No.02/2022 Sushil Rai Vs State of Sikkim & Ors.
who did not get a favourable award from the Government of Sikkim -- as will
appear from the contentious memo dated 22nd June, 2020 -- which has
prompted filing of the instant writ petition in the name of Sushil Rai.
At this juncture, we sought a response from the learned advocate for the
petitioner as to whether he would like to press forward with the matter or seek
leave of Court to withdraw the instant writ petition. Learned advocate for the
petitioner prayed for a couple of minutes' time in order to take instructions. He
now submits, on instructions, that his client does not desire to prosecute the
matter and seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
While we grant the writ petitioner leave to withdraw the writ petition and
consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, we would like to
make an observation that time has come to put a full stop to misuse of the
public interest jurisdiction of High Courts in the manner in which it was sought
to be misused in the present case.
(Meenakshi Madan Rai) (Biswanath Somadder)
Judge Chief Justice
jk/sl/ami
Page 2 of 2
