Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 595
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Prrsaar Commodity Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
MCX & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3019 of 2020 and CM Appls. 10498-99 of 2020
Decided On : 29-04-2020
Mr. Mukesh M.Goel, Adv, for the Appellant; Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amar Gupta, Mr. Divyam Agarwal Ms. Pallavi Kumar, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and Ms. Surekha Raman, Advs, for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3; Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pratap Venugopal and Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv, for the Respondent No. 2/ SEBI
The requirement that a public interest litigation (PIL) can only be maintained where the affected persons are incapable of accessing the court.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability of PIL - The court considered the preliminary objection raised by the SEBI regarding the maintainability of the public interest litigation (PIL) in the case, emphasizing the requirement that a PIL can only be maintained where the affected persons are incapable of accessing the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner disclaimed any personal interest in the matter and sought to treat the petition as a public interest litigation (PIL). The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the PIL.
Finding of the Court:
The court scheduled a renotification to allow the petitioner to amend the writ petition and establish its maintainability as a public interest litigation. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the petition and did not pass any interim order.
Issues: Maintainability of public interest litigation (PIL) in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: A public interest litigation can only be maintained where the affected persons are incapable of accessing the court.
Final Decision: The court scheduled a renotification to allow the petitioner to amend the writ petition and establish its maintainability as a public interest litigation. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the petition and did not pass any interim order.
JUDGMENT
1. A preliminary objection has been advanced, by Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the SEBI, in this matter.
2. Mr. Datar invites my attention to paras 2 to 4 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, which read thus:
'' 2. That I have filed the present petition which may be treated by the Honble Court either as a petition filed by a privately aggrieved person or as a Public Interest Litigation.
3. I have gone through the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and do hereby affirm that if the Honble Court views that it to be PIL, the present petition is also in conformity thereof.
4. I have no personal interest in the litigation other than as an ordinary citizen (except for gain as set out in its main body and its prayers), and neither myself nor anybody in whom I am interested would, in any manner, benefit from the relief sought in the present litigation, save as a Member of the General Public. This petition is not guided by self-gain (except as set out in its main body and its prayers) or gain of any person, institution, or body and there is no motive other than of public interest in filing this petition, if this Honble Court prefers to treat this as a PIL. ''
3. Drawing attention to these paragraphs, whereunder the petitioner disclaims any personal interest in this matter, Mr. Datar submits that no public interest litigation can be maintained in a case such as this.
4. Prima facie , there is substance in the submission of Mr. Datar. It is trite that a public interest litigation would lie only where the persons affected by the impugned action are incapable of accessing the court.
5. On this objection being put to Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, he initially prayed that the petition be treated as a ''sort of PIL''. Thereafter, Mr. Goel seeks leave of the court to amend the writ petition and introduce necessary averments to establish its maintainability as a public interest litigation.
6. Accordingly, renotify on 27 th May, 2020.
7. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the petition and has passed no interim order either.
