“It would also be appropriate for this Court for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well-settled that 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.”
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking following reliefs:-
“10.1 Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to proper inquiry and may be pleased to command the respondents by appropriate writ or order to lodge FIR against the corrupt employees without loss of time and action may kindly be taken by CBI and case may be monitored by this Hon’ble Court.
10.2 Issue any writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
10.3 Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded.”
By this PIL, the petitioner, which is a non-governmental organization (NGO), has filed this petition through its Secretary, seeking for issuance of an appropriate writ to the respondents directing them to take cognizance on the serious complaints made by the him to the authorities of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and also to the Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire the matter of corruption and to register FIR against the corrupt officers/employees of the FCI. In the complaint made by the petitioner on 16.12.2018 to the FCI, it has replied on 14.01.2019 that they have charge-sheeted one Class I Officer of the rank of Assistant General Manager and few Class II and Class III officials. However, the Class I officers, who made the payments and who allowed them to make payments were left untouched. The respondents have not taken any action for the losses suffered to the public exchequer for the period from 2006-2011 because of double payment and inaction by the senior officers in spite of all relevant records/ documents available with them and till date, no FIR has been lodged even after the prima facie evidence have been submitted to the respondent authorities.
J.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the FIC and retired from services in the year 2006. Because of the rampant corruption, the employees of FCI are facing great difficulties. The petitioner held the post of Union representative and thereafter also held the post of Secretary, Pradarshak Social Welfare Society, Bhopal. There have been many complaints regarding huge bogus payments made to the contractors from 2006 onwards at a very exorbitant rate for transportation of food grains by longer routes while as per the rules/conditions of contract, the payment was to be made for the shortest route. Non investigation of the said illegal activities has caused huge losses to the State and the Government of India. The petitioner has pointed out various illegal and corrupt practices which were prevailing in the FCI, as stated from paragraph 8.1 to 8.5 of the petition. The petitioner has also made various complaints to respondent authorities to take action against the erring officers, however, no action has been taken till date and only the petty Class III employees are being made the scapegoat. Hence, this petition.
On the other hand, Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh and Mr. R.S.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Food Corporation of India would submit that firstly, the petitioner has no locus to file this petition. The petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Lokpal under Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayutkas Act, 2013. They would rely on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ram Avtar Singh Jadon v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, Writ Petition No. 8141/2012, decided on 01.08.2013, wherein the Division Bench had disposed of the matter on the ground that if the petitioner therein has any greivance, he may move an application before the Lokayukta. They would further submit that the petitioner has several other forums available if he has any grievance. He may file a complaint before the concerned authorities or the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the Bench does not find any locus of the petitioner in this matter, if petitioner is aggrieved, he can go before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.Therefore the Court dismissed the PIL.