Sk Chatterjee v. UOI and Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 27, 2011 VKR/dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO. 3923/2011 Date of order: 27th July, 2011 SK CHATTERJEE ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Advocate. versus UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Sonia Sharma & Mr. Mirza Aslam Beg, Mr. Bhagat Singh & Mr. Yash Wardhan Tiwari, Advocates for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar & Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocates for respondent No. 5. Mr. Vijay Nair & Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates for respondent No. 6. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes. DIPAK MISRA, CJ.: The petitioner, Mr. S.K. Chatterjee, describing himself as a real estate consultant and a peace loving person, has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents as to why the compliance of CVC Guidelines while awarding the Civil Contract by the Government Department/PSUs/State Government/Semi- Government Agencies shall be made mandatory and in return of the Rule and after hearing the Parties make the Rule absolute; and (ii) May further be please to direct the Respondents to provide specific provision/criteria in the terms and conditions of the tender in view of the CVC Guidelines for awarding of Civil Contract especially for the Lead Members in case bidder is a Joint Venture or Consortium; and (iii) May pass an order/direction for free, fair and impartial enquiry into the matter of grant of lease of Railway Land situated in Sarai rohilla-Kishanganj, New Delhi to M/s. Paresnath Developers Ltd. and on submission of report and on perusal may pass necessary and appropriate direction. (iv) May further be please to direct the respondents to cancel the contract awarded without following the CVC Guidelines; and (v) May further be pleased to pass such other and further order as may be deemed just and proper in the premises of this case." 2. It is submitted by Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents are under legal obligation to comply with the CVC guidelines while awarding the civil contracts but there has been a constant and consistent departure from the same for unfathomable reasons as a consequence of which the contracts are awarded in violation of the guidelines. It is urged that non-following of the CVC guidelines has resulted in award of civil contract in favour of the respondent No. 6, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited. 3. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel, and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 5, the Rail Land Development Authority, has submitted that the present Public Interest Litigation does not even remotely pertain to any public interest inasmuch as the petitioner, though has described himself as a public spirited person, his personal interest is absolutely ingrained and further the present case is an epitome of shadow litigation. To substantiate the said submission, he has invited our attention to the communication made by the petitioner to various authorities, at pages 132-133 of the paper book. For the sake of proper appreciation of the factual scenario, we think it appropriate to reproduce the same in entirety: "With reference to the above it has been observed in the RLDA Tenders opened on 11th November, 2010 which M/s Pareshnath Developer, New Delhi has been awarded the above Land at a price of Rs.1652 crores but very motivatedly the above Government Authority has dishonoured the major CVC guidelines Number 12-02-1-CTE-6 dated the 17th December, 2002 where clearly mentioned that the bidder should have a completion certificate of one similar completed work costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost in addition to the above, the criteria re