The duty of the Court to examine matters in larger public interest and ensure institutional integrity is not compromised.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J. - The petitioner, who claims himself to be working as a clerk with an Advocate at Baruipur Court, has filed the present petition in public interest raising an issue that for procurement of LED street lights the instructions issued by the Government of West Bengal have been violated by the Chandernagore Municipal Corporation (for short 'the Corporation').

2. At the very outset, Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding locus of the petitioner to file the present petition in public interest. He submitted that it is a proxy litigation by some of the business house who may not have been successful in the tendering process. Credentials of the petitioner are not there to show that he is a public spirited person, who had earlier filed petition raising any issue of larger public interest. In the absence thereof, the present petition, filed for an oblique motive, deserves to be thrown out at the threshold. He referred to Rules framed by this Court regarding entertainment of the public interest litigation. His argument is that there is complete violation thereof and in terms of Rules 56 and 57 the present petition does not deserve to be entertained. In support reliance was placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 .

3. He further argued that the petitioner claimed that he is working as a law clerk with an advocate in Baruipur Court. He is a resident of Garia East Boalia, District-South 24 Paraganas and the cause sought to be expounded is pertaining to Chandernagore. Hence, it cannot be justified on any ground that the petitioner will have any interest for the area where he is not living. However, no judgment specifying the territorial limits for a petitioner to raise an issue in public interest, has been cited.

4. Mr. Sakya Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner while refuting the arguments raised by the learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is a proxy litigant, who is espousing the cause of any business house, is not made out from any affidavit or document placed on record by the respondent. The petitioner is working as a law clerk with an Advocate at Baruipur Court. When he came to know about the illegalities committed by the Corporation, immediately the present petition was filed. It is a question of saving public money. Once the cause has been espoused by the petitioner, where he is not personally interested and the result thereof is procurement of quality product at competitive rates by the Corporation, the Court can always entertain and interfere in the subject- matter.

5. As far as the merits of the controversy is concerned, he submitted that the Government of West Bengal, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs had issued instructions to various authorities including all the Chairpersons/Administrators of Urban Local Bodies, Commissioners of all the Municipal Corporations and C.E.O/E.O. of all Development Authorities vide No.1528(3)-UDMA-13013(99)/3/2020-ESTT-TCP SEC-Dept. of UDMA dated December 08, 2020 providing technical specifications, for procurement of LED street lights under Green City Mission Project. It was mentioned in the aforesaid communication that the instructions issued are required to be strictly adhered to. The documents annexed with the instructions provided for technical specifications for LED street lights also includes the period of warranty. It is also provided for a vendor list giving names of the manufacturers and the models for different wattage of LED lights. It further provided that the procurement can be of 'Any Other Reputed Make Having Same Technical Specifications Attached'. However, while inviting the tenders, the Corporation vide Memo No.3133/TP Cell/Tender/2020/10 dated January 15, 2021 clearly violated the directions issued by the Government. It provided for a warranty of three years as against seve