Ritesh Tanwar & Ors. v. Delhi Cantonment Board Through Its CEO & Ors.

1. The present LPA arises out of an Order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ritesh Tanwar & Ors. v. Delhi Cantonment Board Through Its CEO & Ors., W.P. (C) 12833/2021. 2022:DHC:3160-DB

2. The facts of the case reveal that Appellant No.1 and 2 are individuals, and Petitioner No.3 is an Association of Contractors. The writ petition was preferred by the Appellants herein for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining Respondent No.2 from holding any public post alleging that Respondent No.2 does not hold the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer and he is a backdoor entrant.

3. Learned Single Judge vide Order dated 15.11.2021, had dismissed the said writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 9 of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:-

4. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the appointment of Respondent No.2 was made in the year 1996 and it was only after about 25 years of the appointment of Respondent No.2 that the writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Cantonment Board has stated before this Court that Appellant Nos.[1] and 2 have filed this appeal with an oblique and ulterior motive as their property was sealed in the presence of Respondent No.2 as it was an unauthorized construction. Learned counsel for the Appellants has admitted in Court that their property was sealed on the allegation that it is an unauthorized construction.

6. Learned counsel for the Delhi Cantonment Board states that as many as 288 applications were preferred by the Appellant No.1 and 2 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also submitted that as many as 83 complaints have been filed against Respondent No.2 by the Appellants and they have all been looked into by the authorities. Similarly, the complaint preferred by the Appellants was also looked into by the Principal Director, (Directorate of Defence Estates), Western Command, wherein it has been held that there was no irregularity in appointment of Respondent No.2.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also does not dispute the order passed by the Principal Director (Directorate of Defence Estates), Western Command.

8. The learned counsel for the Appellants further contends before this Court that there is lot of corruption in the Delhi Cantonment Board. He has stated that the tenders of the Appellants were rejected without any reasons and there are violations of the rules while granting tenders to certain persons. However, this is not the subject matter of the instant appeal.

9. In light of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal is nothing but an attempt made by the Appellants to blackmail the Delhi Cantonment Board. In case there is corruption in the Delhi Cantonment Board, a mechanism has been provided under various provisions of law and the Appellants are certainly at liberty to avail the remedies in accordance with law. Merely by making bald allegations, this Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the allegations made by the Appellants. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.