Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
The case is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.
The instant PIL has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Notice inviting Bid and Bid dated 08.05.2021 bearing Bid No. GEM/2021/B/1207071 issued by Uttar Pradesh State Rural Livelihood Mission;
(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any action in furtherance of the impugned Notice inviting Bid and Bid dated 08.05.2021 bearing Bid No. GEM/2021/B/1207071 issued by Uttar Pradesh State Rural Livelihood Mission;
(c) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed; and
(d) To allow the writ petition with costs."
Taking note of the nature of the writ petition and one of the main grounds taken by the petitioner for seeking the reliefs sought, which is to the effect that in order to favour a particular Company and to stop other bidders from participating in the tender process, the tender process has been initiated hurriedly and in the time of lockdown in the State on account of COVID-19 pandemic, this Court on 24.05.2021 passed the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for three days' time to file a supplementary affidavit justifying his locus to institute the present writ petition spelling out clearly his credentials.
On the next date of listing, Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Addl. CSC may also apprise the Court as to what number of tenders have come forward seeking participation in the tender process.
List in the week commencing 31st May, 2021, as fresh.
Calling upon the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel may not be construed to imply that this Court has expressed any opinion on the maintainability of the writ petition."
Today, when the case is taken up, Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing, on the basis of the instructions, informed that in the tender process, 17 firms have participated and also raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that it appears that the present writ petition is a proxy petition and no public interest is involved in it and moreover, credentials, as required, for entertaining the writ petition are lacking.
Learned counsel for the petitioners on the issue of maintainability of present PIL on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials submitted that in terms of the order dated 24.05.2021 and to justify the locus to approach this Court challenging the tender process through present writ petition, which is in the nature of PIL, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 29.05.2021, wherein the credentials of the petitioner have been disclosed as such the writ petition is liable to be entertained.
We have taken note of the averments made in the supplementary affidavit dated 29.05.2021.
In para 4 of the same, it has been stated that the petitioner is the grandson of Late Shri Shivadhar Lal Bajpai, who was a freedom fighter. It appears from para 5-12 of the same that the petitioner is also the State Head of Bhartiye Dalit Panther Association and being part of the Association he had participated in various protests organized by the Association to protest against the increasing corruption, political criminalization, violence, dacoity, kidnapping, rape, land grabbing cases, which were raised in the year 2011 and 2013. As per para 13 of the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner is also a member of Yuva Samaj Sangthan and the said Sangathan gave representations to Hon'ble President of India and Governor of Uttar Pradesh raising issue of corruption, thereby intimating that candle march shall be carried out by the members of Association on 26.08.2011. In para 14 of the supplementary affidavit, to the view of the Court, vague statement has been given by the petitioner regarding raising causes of public welfare. In para 15 of the supplementary affidavit, without any proof in support thereof, the petitioner has made certain allegations regarding demand of bribe by the officials for continuation of employees in service as also with regard to deposit of EPF and ESI of the employees and causing loss to the temporary employees.
On the issue of "Credential" as also on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition as a PIL, this Court vide judgment dated 05.11.2020, passed in P.I.L. CIVIL No.- 19497 of 2020 (Narendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) observed as under:-
"The normal rule is that a person, who suffers a legal injury or whose legal right is infringed, alone has locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction to avoid miscarriage of justice. The said common rule of locus standi stands relaxed where the grievance is raised before the Court on behalf of poor, deprived, illiterate or the disabled persons, who cannot approach the Court independently for redressal of the legal wrong or the injury caused to them on account of violation of any constitutional or legal right. These are mostly cases in public interest, i.e., cases on behalf of class of persons mentioned above.
However, the relaxation so provided from the strict rule of locus standi lately came to be misused or abused by unscrupulous persons seeking cheap publicity. Therefore, the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402] observed that as the process of the Court is frequently abused in the name of Public Interest Litigation, all High Courts need to frame Rules to prevent such abuse. In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court Rules were also amended and Sub-Rule (3-A) was added under Chapter XXII Rule 1 w.e.f. 1.5.2010. The aforesaid Rule reads as under:-
"(3-A) In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State."
A simple reading of the aforesaid Rule reveals that in addition to the other requirements mentioned under the Chapter for filing a writ petition, the person filing the petition in Public Interest should precisely and specifically, apart from other things, state his credentials and the public cause he is seeking to espouse. Therefore, disclosure of credentials and the public purpose sought to be espoused are also essential elements to be stated in initiating proceedings in public interest.
The petitioner in the writ petition, except for mentioning that he is a Lawyer and is involved in a social work, has not stated anything covering any of the above essential requirements. In short, he has not disclosed his credentials.
The dictionary meaning of the word 'credentials' is the qualities and the experience of a person that make him suitable for doing a particular job. The Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary, 2nd Edition, explains credentials as the quality which makes a person perfect for the job or a document that is a proof that he has the training and education necessary to prove that he is a person qualified for doing the particular job.
The petitioner herein claims to be a Social Worker, but in order to substantiate the nature of the social work he is doing or seeks to do, he has not disclosed any experience that makes him suitable or perfect for doing the said job and no document in proof has been furnished.
Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, defines 'credential' a document or other evidence that proves one's authority or expertise; a testimonial that a person is entitled to credit or to the right to exercise official power.
The petitioner, in the absence of any documentary proof to establish his authority or expertise in doing social work, does not have the requisite credentials to initiate petition in Public Interest.
Considering the aforesaid definition(s) of the term 'credential' and the law on entertaining the PIL what we feel is that for maintaining the PIL the petitioner in the writ petition, in brief, should state, with proof, that what he has done and what expertise he has on the subject matter of PIL as also that what exercise (sufficient) has been carried out by the petitioner before the administration prior to knocking the door of the Court and that what injury would be caused to the downtrodden of the society or public at large if cause under PIL is not espoused by the Court.
In Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Ranjan [(2003) 7 SCC 546], it has been observed that the Courts are constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of disadvantageous people and therefore, can entertain petitions under Articles 32/226 of the Constitution of India filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who are in a disadvantageous position and are unable to knock the doors of the Courts.
The petitioner in filing this petition in Public Interest has not even disclosed that he is filing this petition on behalf of such disadvantageous persons or that injustice is meted out to a large number of people and therefore it has become necessary for him to come forward on their behalf.
It is well-settled that Public Interest Litigation is for ensuring basic human rights to the deprived and to secure social, economic and political justice. The Apex Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCR 67] observed that the public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation but a challenge to the Government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community. It is only to protect such class of persons against violation of their basic human rights which is the constitutional obligation of the executive that ordinarily recourse to public interest litigation may be permitted.
In view of the aforesaid reasons and the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner is not a person, who has any credentials to move in Public Interest. Simply on the allegation that he is a Lawyer and a person involved in social work without disclosing his credentials and in the absence of the fact that the petition has been preferred in the interest of justice for large number of downtrodden persons who are unable to approach the Courts of Law, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this petition in public interest that too in a matter which does not involve basic human rights.
The firm, i.e., M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata in question was earlier inspected and was declared in Category 'C'.
The letter dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure - 3) of the Chief Engineer (Purchase), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow on record clearly stated that the inspecting agency, i.e., M/s Crown Agents (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi may inspect the aforesaid firm and it is only on its certification that the firm meets the standards provided the supply from the firm-M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., would be taken.
It is pertinent to mention here that U.P. Jal Nigam is not directly involved in the purchase of any material from any firm, rather it awards contracts on turn-key basis and it is the contractor who makes purchases of the material from amongst firms prescribed by the U. P. Jal Nigam, provided there is otherwise no legal impediment.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the letter of the Chief Engineer (Purchase) on record, since the purchases from the aforesaid firm would be taken subsequent to its certification by the inspecting agency, we do not find that this matter requires interference by us in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.
Moreover, the controversy sought to be raised is one relating to award of contracts and the possibility of the petitioner being set-up by the rival groups cannot be ruled out. It is certainly not a petition on behalf of any disadvantageous group of persons rather and one on behalf of a competitor.
It is trite to mention here that a dispute between two warring groups is in the realm of a private dispute and is not allowed to be agitated as a Public Interest Litigation vide Ramsharan Autyanuprasi and another v. Union of India and others [AIR 1989 SC 549].
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated above, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable in public interest at the behest of the petitioner."
Taking note of the observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2020 as also the averments made in the supplementary affidavit dated 29.05.2021, we are of the view that to maintain this PIL, the subject matter which is the tender process initiated by the opposite parties for engaging service provider, the petitioner has failed to disclose his credentials.
Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BALCO employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, in para-87, has observed that PIL was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decision which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision which he records as illegal can impugn the same in the court of law but a PIL at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Para-87 is reproduced as under:-
"It will seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violations of Article 21 of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of poor and the under privileged who are unable to come to Court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the Courts. We may, however, add that Public Interest Litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a Court of law, but, a Public Interest Litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the Court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected and unable to approach the Court."
Considering the aforesaid which includes credentials of the petitioner in relation to subject of the present writ petition, which relates to tender process for engaging the service provider, as also the 17 firms have participated in impugned tender process and proposition of law, we are not inclined to entertain this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.5.2021 Arun/-