Delhi High Court
Shri Jagdish Chander vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 27 May, 2009
Author: Neeraj Kishan Kaul
Bench: Chief Justice, Neeraj Kishan Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 9365/2009 & CM No.7186/2009
SHRI JAGDISH CHANDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 27.05.2009
1. The present petition is styled as a "Public Interest Litigation". The principle grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that there is an increase in pressure on available parking spaces in Connaught Place as there is a continues and constant increase of vehicles. It is contended by the petitioner that a huge parking lot behind Hindustan Times Building had been closed by the respondent for constructing a multi level parking site. The construction at the site is going on at snail space, which added to the misery of vehicle users who used to park their vehicles at the said area. The respondent, as per the petitioner, had added to the problem of the vehicle owners at the aforesaid area by restricting the parking area upto 7022 square meters instead of 36762 square meters. As per the petitioner, parking sites near Hanuman Mandir and Baba Kharak Singh Road had already been closed for constructing a multi level parking and the respondents were now inviting fresh tenders confining the parking area to 7022 square meters. The said action of WP(C)No. 9365/2009 Page No.1 of 3 the respondents is alleged to be arbitrary as drastic reduction of area is going to cause harassment to the vehicle owners. The petitioner has prayed inter alia for the relief of staying the operation of the tender dated 15th May, 2009.
2. The counsel for respondent NDMC, on the other hand, submitted that the present petition was a motivated petition filed by the existing tenderers to whom parking spaces had been earlier allotted as they did not want fresh proposals/tenders to be floated and wanted to continue to enjoy the benefits of the contracts for parking sites earlier allotted to them.
3. When we asked the counsel for the petitioner as to what was the petitioner's locus and interest in filing the present petition, the only answer that we got was that though the petitioner had his business in Daryaganj, but he frequently visited Connaught Place and was thus interested in adequate parking spaces being available in the area.
4. It has been time and again held by the Supreme Court that 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 private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. As held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349, the courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or WP(C)No. 9365/2009 Page No.2 of 3 private motive or other oblique consideration. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
5. What surprises us even further is that how can the petitioner who claims to be a public spirited citizen actually ask for stay of the tender dated 15th May, 2009. If this prayer of the petitioner was to be allowed, it would further add to the parking problem and cause inconvenience to the public at large. We fail to see how and why would a public spirited person really concerned about the problem of parking ask for stay of a tender for allotment of parking areas. Clearly, the entire story of parking area being reduced for various reasons is a camouflage to actually fight a proxy war on behalf of the existing tenderers who do not want fresh tenders to be submitted for parking areas in question and want to continue to enjoy the existing benefits and largesse awarded by the State.
6. The present writ petition is clearly an abuse of process of law and has been filed with oblique considerations. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Accordingly, we dismiss the present writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The pending application stands disposed of as well.
CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 27, 2009 sb WP(C)No. 9365/2009 Page No.3 of 3