Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(ORAL)
1. Nand Lal Jaiswal has preferred this petition with the prayer that firm working under name and style of M/s Northern Power Erectors Ltd., New Delhi was blacklisted vide order dated 22.04.2010. The order of blacklisting be withdrawn.
It has further been prayed that high level inquiry be initiated.
It has also been prayed that an inquiry be conducted against Shri Satish Kumar, Chief Engineer and Shri S.C. Bunkar, Superintending Engineer.
2. Shri Nand Lal Jaiswal has appeared in person. We find that the firm in whose context blacklisting order has been issued has not been impleaded. We have questioned Shri Nand Lal Jaiswal as to what stops M/s Northern Power Erectors Ltd., New Delhi to approach a Court of law for challenging order dated 22.04.2010 (supra).
Shri Jaiswal has not been able to give any satisfactory response.
3. Be that as it may, while noticing that Shri Nand Lal Jaiswal would have no locus standi to prefer this petition, an inquiry was ordered vide order dated 29.05.2013. Order dated 29.05.2013 reads as under:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
This writ petition is said to have been filed by the petitioner at the instance of a Member of Parliament called Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh Verma inter alia with a prayer for removal of black listing of the firm.
The petitioner claims to be a retired Office Assistanat of U.P. Jal Vidhut Nigam. Apparently he does not have a locus standi to file the petition, however, he states that on a complaint submitted by him, an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Lucknow. Now he again appears to be aggrieved by the report submitted by the police officer.
The petitioner in person also states that this Court may direct a thorough enquiry against him, the firm in question and also U.P. Jal Vidhut Nigam to find out the truthfulness of the complaint. Though, the writ petition would not lie in the absence of locus standi but in view of submission of the petitioner in person, we direct the Director General of Police to find out the veracity of the claim of petitioner in respect of irregularities as aforesaid and also his interest, pecunairy or otherwise, if any, in the firm said to have been black listed.
List the matter on 29.07.2013 with the report of D.G.P., U.P."
4. Inquiry report dated 25.03.2018 has been furnished and is available on record. It has been found that the petitioner has no financial interest in the firm. It is further indicated in the report that high level inquiry has already been concluded at the instance of Additional Director General of Police in which the allegations levelled by the petitioner have not been found to be substantiated.
In concluding portion of the inquiry report it is stated that after conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, the allegations levelled against the officers concerned have not been found to be substantiated.
5. We have perused the contents of the writ petition in which also the petitioner has not indicated as to how he is connected with the firm in question. There is no averment that the petitioner is either a partner in the firm or has any other financial interest.
6. We find it strange that the person aggrieved would be M/s Northern Power Erectors Ltd., New Delhi, however has not filed this petition for any relief. Shri Jaiswal has preferred this petition, although he has no locus standi.
Be that as it may, we find that order dated 29.05.2013 has been complied with. Shri Jaiswal has tried to challenge the veracity of the inquiry report also, which, however, is not being entertained by us in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
7. So far as other prayer with regard to inquiry proceedings to be initiated against Shri Satish Kumar, Chief Engineer and Shri S.C. Bunkar, Superintending Engineer is concerned, a reading to the array of parties clearly indicates that the said persons have not been arrayed as party to the writ petition, and therefore, the said prayer is liable to be rejected on account of non-joinder of necessary parties.
8. The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.8.2019 Nishant/-