WP(C) 8894/2009 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.8894/2009 Sunil Tripathi ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate versus UOI & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pawan Upadhaya, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for Mr. R.N. Nayak, newly added respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 14.05.2009 1. The present petition, styled as a public interest petition, has been filed alleging that there were allegations of corruption and financial irregularities committed by Mr. R.N. Nayak, Executive Director, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited(PGCI). As per the petitioner he had given information/complaints but no action was taken despite reminders. According to the petitioner pursuant to the memorandum dated 4th February,2009 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission(CVC) a three member committee was constituted by the PGCI to examine the issue and inquire into the irregularities. He has relied on the findings of the committee dated 12th February, 2009 and the letter of the Chairman and Managing Director, PGCI dated 23rd March, 2009 to contend that even as per the committee as also the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.3 the irregularities committed by Mr. R.N. Nayak had WP(C) 8894/2009 Page 2 of 5 been established. Despite this, though the report of the Committee and the letter of the Chairman/Managing Director of respondent No.3 having been forwarded to the Ministry of Power and the CVC, no action is being taken. Accordingly, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition. 2. Though Mr. R.N. Nayak was not made a party to the petition, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate appeared on his behalf on 13th May, 2009 and on his oral request Mr. R.N. Nayak was impleaded as a party. It is the contention of the counsel for Mr. R.N. Nayak that Mr. Nayak has been harassed time and again at the behest of interested parties who have filed false and malicious complaints against him. As per the counsel, Mr. R.N. Nayak has been harassed time and again by repeated false complaints being made against him which have no basis whatsoever. Complaints were also made through Shri S.P. Goyal, Member of Parliament to the CVC. However, the Member of Parliament finally withdrew his complaint from the Power Ministry on 28th February, 2009. It was also stated on behalf of Mr. R.N. Nayak that the C.M.D., PGCI had forwarded the report of the internal committee to the CVC along with his own comments and the CVC after calling for the relevant records and after thorough examination of the entire record granted vigilance clearance to Mr. R.N. Nayak on 31st March, 2009. Mr. Poddar handed over to us in the Court a brief synopsis along with some documents. As per letter dated 31st March, 2009 handed over to us in the Court, the Commission had accorded vigilance clearance to Mr. R.N. Nayak after consideration of his WP(C) 8894/2009 Page 3 of 5 candidature for the post of Director(Operations), PGCI. It is rather strange that the petitioner who seems to have access to most of the records and internal correspondence did not place before us this letter dated 31st March, 2009. As per the synopsis handed over by Mr. Poddar to us in Court, in April 2009, complaints were again made to the CVC. The CVC again examined the matter and found serious deficiencies in the report submitted by the C.M.D. of respondent No.3. The findings and the report were found to be based on incorrect statement of facts and the conclusions arrived at by the committee constituted by the C.M.D. were found to be motivated. It was also stated that the CVC had recorded that the entire exercise have been initiated by vested elements. It was also stated that on 28th April, 2009 the CVC while rejecting the report of the committee appointed by the C.M.D. pointed out serious deficiencies in the report and took an adverse view against the C.M.D. for making deliberately incorrect report to the CVC. The CVC has apparently sought an explanation from the C.M.D. It was also stated by Mr. Poddar that Mr. Sudip Kar who had been transferred on the basis of the written information furnished to the CVC was also transferred back to his old post and his transfer revoked. The counsel for Mr. R.N. Nayak also submitted that the CVC had examined the matter thoroughly over three times and cleared the name of Mr. R.N. Nayak. All the allegations against him were found contrary to the record. The complaints were specifically found to be motivated and the complaints were found to be at the behest of some vested elements. It is the contention of Mr. Poddar that undeterred by such findings of WP(C) 8894/2009 Page 4 of 5 the CVC the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of this petition styled as a PIL. He has also alleged that all the documents annexed by the petitioner with the report have been supplied by the office of the C.M.D. and have not been obtained under Right to Information Act which establish that the petitioner is merely a proxy litigant set up by third parties to settle personal scores with Mr. R.N. Nayak. There has been no denial of these submissions made by Mr. Podar except for the fact that today in the Court Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner handed over to us a letter dated 21st April, 2009 issued by the CVC to the petitioner stating that certain information asked for could not be supplied to him under the RTI Act as it may impede the process of investigation. It is also stated in the said letter that the information could not be given till the matter was pending consideration by the A.C.C. Without getting into the rival contentions and the merits of the matter we may observe that as held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly privae malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal WP(C) 8894/2009 Page 5 of 5 vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. As held by the Supreme Court of India in Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2005) 5 SCC 136 easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petition. The Supreme Court in the said case also observed that in service matters PIL should not be entertained and also took note of the fact that in PILs official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. 3. It appears from what has been stated hereinabove that either the matter has been duly investigated by the competent authorities or is in the process of being investigated by the concerned authorities. This is not a matter which persuades us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 14, 2009 RS