Perumal Ramasamy v. Union of India and Others

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) seeking following directions.

2. In the writ petition, the Petitioner has asserted that he is a NIS approved Coach and the present PIL has been filed by him as the affected persons such as Athletes, Coaches and their admirers are numerous in number and they are not organized to the extent that they may collectively pursue their personal interest in the matters related to good governance of Athletics.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4, who appears on advance notice states that he has a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. He states that the petitioner fails to disclose the filing and pendency of W.P.(C) 14795/2022 titled ‘Pune District Athletic Association v. Union of India & Others’ for identical reliefs and on similar grounds. He states that the language of both petitions and the reliefs sought therein are identical. He states that the same advocate drafted and filed both the petitions. However, the pendency of the W.P.(C) 14795/2022 has not been disclosed. He states that the W.P.(C) 14795/2022 is listed before the learned Single Judge for hearing today. He has handed over an entire paper-book of W.P.(C) 14795/2022. He seeks the dismissal of the present petition and relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court of India in State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma and Others[1].

3.1. He states that the present writ petition is defective inasmuch as it has been drawn up on 14th March, 2024; enclosed Annexures which are dated 27th February, 2024 but is supported by an affidavit of the Petitioner affirmed on 19th January, 2024.

4. In response, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that W.P.(C) 14795/2022 has been filed by him as an advocate and contains overlapping reliefs. He states however, the Petitioner herein per se has no knowledge of W.P.(C) 14795/2022 and therefore there is nothing wrong in not mentioning W.P.(C) 14795/2022 in the present petition. He states that as an advocate his personal knowledge cannot be ascribed to the Petitioner herein.

5. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the present writ petition and W.P.(C) No. 14795/2022.

6. The prayers sought in the pending W.P.(C) No. 14795/2022 titled ‘Pune District Athletic Association v. Union of India & Others’ are as under:

7. A comparison of the prayers sought in the present petition with W.P.(C) 14795/2022 would show that prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D) of the present writ petition correspond to prayer clauses (A), (C) (D) and (E) of W.P.(C) 14795/2022. Respondent No. 4 also draws our attention to the synopsis filed with both the petitions, which are nearly identical.

8. In the affidavit, affirmed by the Petitioner in support of the present writ petition, the Petitioner at paragraph no. 5 and in the verification clause has stated that no material fact has been concealed in the present petition. The paragraph no. 5 reads as follows: - ‘That, I have done whatsoever inquiry/ investigation which was in my power to do, to collect all data/ material which was available and which was relevant for this court to entertain the present Writ Petition. I further confirm that I have not concealed in the present Writ Petition any data/ material/ information which may have enabled this court to form an opinion whether to entertain this petition or not and/ or whether to grant any relief or not.’ We are of the considered opinion that in the facts noted hereinabove, the advocate for the Petitioner would have necessarily apprised the Petitioner about the pendency of the W.P.(C) 14795/2022 and this fact should have been fairly disclosed in the present petition. We are therefore, not satisfied with the bald denial offered by the learned counsel for the Petitioner with respect to nondisclosure of W.P.(C) 14795/2022 in the present petition. The PIL jurisdiction is a benign jurisdiction and a party invoking this jurisdiction must exercise due caution and make full disclosure; however, the Petitioner herein has withheld this material fact.

9. Be that as it may, Rule 9(i)(d) of the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 requires the petitioner to disclose in the writ petition the class of persons for whose benefit the petition has been filed and how such persons are incapable of accessing the Courts. While making the said disclosure the Petitioner herein in this PIL ought to have disclosed the filing and pendency of W.P.(C) 14795/2022 for identical reliefs. In light of the fact that an affected party has already approached the Court for identical reliefs on similar pleas, which are pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge of this Court, we find no ground for entertaining the present PIL at the behest of the Petitioner herein for similar reliefs.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that the present petition be tagged and heard along with W.P.(C) 14795/2022, however, we are not inclined to accept the said prayer.

11. The present PIL along with application is accordingly dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.

12. It is made clear that we have not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits of maintainability of W.P.(C) 14795/2022 in these proceedings.