Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous so far as the main relief of 2010 tender process is concerned. Issue of black-listing of G.E is an issue which is for the Railways to look into inasmuch as black-listing can only be done under a specified process of a government organization and which only the concerned authority can do with the further aspect that in the opinion of that authority that it is required to be done.

24. In our opinion, for the sake of argument even if we take the averments made in the writ petition in some way to have an alleged case of corruption, however, every case of corruption does not mean that this Court should entertain PILs unless a grave public interest is involved by it being substantiated by specific and detailed pleadings and the requisite independent corroborative documents, but which we find lacking in the present case. Of course, we may hasten to add that there is a case of corruption has not even prima facie been made out because the so called allegations of corruptions are only self-serving averments of the petitioner without any independent and acceptable substantial material to at all substantiate these allegations. Petitioner has totally failed to give prima facie substantiation to her allegations of bribery, corruption etc and just because petitioner is keen on making self-serving wild and reckless allegations against government officials, Ministries, GE companies etc etc does not mean that allegations simply because they are repeated hundreds of times should be read as having any substance in the same. We would at this stage seek to clarify that we are not specifically referring to the allegations of corruption and bribery etc inasmuch, if we will do so, then, we would in fact be looking into merits of issues with respect to a tender process of 2010 and which we need not at all do so inasmuch as the 2010 tender process has been cancelled and recalled long back. At the cost of repetition we would like to state that the averments made in the writ petition having not been substantiated, hence lack legal basis, and thus do not in any manner deserve even a cursory and prima facie acceptance by this Bench.

28. In view of the above, the various orders passed by this Court, and the wild and reckless allegations made by the petitioner against all and sundry including Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the Supreme Court, the present is a classic case of abuse of PIL process where the writ petition must be and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 2 lacs to be deposited within 3 months with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Authority and payment of which costs shall be a condition precedent for the petitioner to initiate any fresh independent litigation on any of the subject matters of the present proceedings. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.