Harish Batra and Anr v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors

1. This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers: “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Constitution of S.I.T. for scam committed by the officials of D.S.I.I.D.C. and the corruption going on there;

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to take action against all the officials, who are involved in the scam and corruption;

(iii) Award costs of the present writ petition in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents;

(iv) Pass any such other or further orders as this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the contracts were given by the respondent No.2 to the concerned companies for removal of the waste and dumping of the same and for such other work there were malpractices adopted by the concerned respondent authorities and hence, the investigation is required to be carried out by the special investigation team. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that there are violations of the terms of the contract and without any photography, videography and without proper assessment of the removal of the waste and dumping of the same, the payments have been made. The amount, as per petitioners, in this case, is approximately ₹8 crores.

3. The counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken this Court to the special conditions which are enumerated at page No.26 of the memo of this writ petition and has submitted that the special conditions have been violated and the money has been paid to the contractor in breach of these conditions. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioners that, in fact, for the work not done by the contractors the money has been paid and, therefore, special investigation team may be constituted for the scam committed by the officials of respondent No.2/Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC) and such other officers. It is also submitted by the counsel for petitioners that it is claimed by the contractors that huge quantity of the waste has been removed and dumped but there is no measurement of the quantity of the waste removed and dumped by the contractors and hence, the payment is made without any proper verification of the work done by the concerned contractors.

4. It is also submitted by the counsel for petitioners that applications have been preferred under Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of photography or videography of the work done but no proper reply has been given by the concerned respondent. Thus, in the absence of any photograpy or videography, the payment has been made by the respondents and hence, special team be constituted to look into the corrupt practices followed by the officers of respondent No.2 - DSSIDC.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - DSSIDC submitted that a detailed counter affidavit dated 6th August, 2016 in response to this petition has been filed. Counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that a status report dated 15th March, 2018 has also been filed wherein details of the work done by the different contractors have been mentioned. It has been submitted by the counsel for respondents that the main allegation in this writ petition is about the breach of the conditions of the contracts and the contractors by whom the work has been done, have not been deliberately joined as party respondents and that they are necessary parties to this litigation. The work done by the contractors for removal of the waste and dumping of the same have been narrated in detail and truckwise details on the receipts have been presented before this Court in the counter affidavit as well as in the status report filed by respondent No.2.

6. It is further submitted by the counsel for respondents that the work was assigned in the year 2012 and the period for which the work has been done by the two different contractors in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. It is further submitted by the counsel for respondents that for the work done by the contractors, the payments have been made. The truckwise detail has been given and the payments are made in accordance with law. Even otherwise also, for the breach of the terms of the contract, no Public Interest Litigation is tenable in law. Thus, in fact, this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. Hence, the same may not be entertained by this Court.

7. Having heard the counsel for both sides and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following reasons:

(i) The allegation, levelled by these petitioners in this Public

Interest Litigation, is about the breach of the terms of the contract and the payment made by the respondent No.2 to the contractors for which the petitioners have prayed for the constitution of special investigation team. It appears that the persons to whom the contract was given have not been joined as party respondents at all and they are necessary parties to this litigation.

(ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that for the alleged breach of the special conditions, which are enumerated at page No.26 of the memo of this writ petition, have not been complied with as per the allegations of these petitioners. This violation of the conditions of the contract cannot be looked into by this Court in this type of litigation. Whenever such type of allegations are being levelled against the respondents or upon the contractors, cogent and convincing evidences are required to be led. In a writ petition the breach of the contract cannot be established, especially, when the respondents have filed an affidavit and stated that there are no violations of the conditions of the contract.

(iii) Much has been argued out by the counsel for petitioners about photography and videography. Photography and videography was to be done as one of the conditions of the contract. Looking at the reply and status report filed by respondent No.2, we see no reason to entertain this ground of photography and videography for appointment of a special investigation team.