Full Text
$-37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI WP(C)No.7462 of2013 &CMNo.15963 of2013 (Directions)
POONAM CHAND BHANDARI Petitioner
Through: Counsel for the Petitioner.
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Vineet Tayal &
Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advs.
27.11.2013 The petitioner before this Court is an advocate, practising in
Rajasthan High Court, who claims to have filed this writ petition with a view to redress public grievance and public injury. It is stated inpara 4 of the writ petition that the petitioner has no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing thepresent writ petition.
The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.10.2013 to the;
Union Minister for Finance; the Director Enforcement; the Chairman, SEBI;i
Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur alleging large scale diversion of funds earned through corrupt means and routed through Mauritius. The petitioner stated in the said representation
2013:DHC:7207 -j; that he has been espousing the pubHc causes and has filed numerous public interest litigations, he being a crusader against corruption in public life, may be inpolitics inexecutive orjudiciary. The allegations inthe representation are directed primarily against Smt. Vasundhara Raje, former ChiefMinister of Rajasthan and one Shri Lalit Modi. The alleged corrupt dealings are stated to involve three companies, namely, M/s. Niyant Heritage Hotels Pvt.
Ltd., which is alleged to be a company of Smt. Vasundhara Raje's sons-in- law; Ananda Heritage Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which is stated to be a company of
Mr. Lalit Modi and Wilton Investment Ltd., which is allege tobea company of fictitious ownership. The reliefclaimed in the present writ petition is a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 22.10.2013 in a time bound manner.
ORDER
2. During the course of hearing, I asked the learned counsel for thei petitioner as to whether thepetitioner has a personal interest of anynature in the present petition. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner has absolutely no personal interest andis acting purely in public interest. Para 1 ofthe writ petition reads as under: "1. Thatthe petitioner is a practicing advocate in Rajasthan High Court for last 25 years. He is the citizen of India. The petitioner has been espousing public causes and has filed numerous public interest litigations before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. He has been a crusader against corruption in public life, may be in politics in executive or judiciary." Para 1 of the representation submitted by the petitioner reads as, under: "1. That the applicant is a practicing advocate in Rajasthan High Court for last 25 years. He has been espousing public causes and has filed numerous public interest litigations. He has been a crusader against corruption in public life, may be in politics in executive or judiciary." It would, thus, be seen that the petitioner claims tobe acting inpublic interest, espousing the public cause. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked asto whether thepetitioner would like thepetition to betreated as a 'Public Interest Litigation'. This, however, was declined by the petitioner. Considering thatthepetitioner does notwant thispetition to betreated ^r" ^ Public Interest Litigation, he would have no locus standi to seek any inquiry into the allegations made in the representation dated 22.10.2013. A person who has no personal interest in the Us, cannot come to the Court except by way ofa Public Interest Litigation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the writpetition shall not' come in theway ofthepetitioner filing a proper Public Interest Litigaticm as per the Rules ofthis Court.
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 V.K. J. b 'nesh