The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking the intervention of the High Court in the matter of allotment of work under the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), which has been launched with the aim of providing basic civic amenities like water supply, sewerage, urban transport, parks as to improve the quality of life for all, especially the poor and the disadvantaged.
The PIL filed by the petitioner, who is the State President of Chhattisgarh Journalist Welfare Union (registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926) and is also social worker and is involved in works which involve welfare of the citizens of State of Chhattisgarh alleged that, the respondents have by committing fraud and malpractice have allotted the work to the respondent no.16 (Firm) against such action, the petitioner has made numerous complaints to the authorities, but no action has been taken.
Hence the petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers :
-to direct the respondent authorities to conduct investigation into the alleged corruption surrounding the implementation of the AMRUT 2.0 scheme in Chhattisgarh.
-to take action against the government officials and individuals involved in the corrupt practices in AMRUT 2.0 scheme in Chhattisgarh.
-to direct the respondents to take steps to prepare measures to ensure transparency and accountability in future tender process and utilization of government funds.
Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that for appointment of consultant for AMRUT 2.0 scheme mission, which has been launched with the aim of providing basic civic amenities like water supply, sewerage, urban transport, parks as to improve the quality of life for all especially the poor and the disadvantaged, the documents submitted by the respondent No.16, having age of 26 years shown to be experience of 22 years has accepted by the said authority allotted the work to him, which is per se illegal. He also submitted that the respondent No.16 is nothing but a consultancy being registered under the ‘D’ category contractor, who is not compatible to apply in the tenders more than Rs. 1 crore as such the allotment appears to be illegal.
From bare perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the petition , the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru noted that the issue which has been raised by the petitioner amounts to effecting the personal rights of the independent aggrieved persons and no public interest at large is not involved in the instant case.
The High Court said that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
“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 Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.”
The Court observed that it cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., Public Interest Litigation has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under:
“143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.”
Considering the prayers and pleadings made in the petition, the Bench was not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. The present petition is a sketchy one and appears to be filed for personal gain and publicity.