The court emphasized the limitations of public interest litigation in challenging financial or economic decisions made by the government and the need for PIL to be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden.

P.G. Agarwal, J.

1. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has been instituted by Shri Sudhangshu Kumar Roy Choudhury, General Secretary of the Committee for National Integration, alleging loss of public money for the execution of the Water Supply Projects in Mizoram. In this Writ petition, the Petitioner has alleged large scale anomalies in the matter of evaluation and allotment of contract work relating to the construction of the following projects:

1. Greater Serchip Water Supply Scheme

2. Greater Kolasib Water Supply Scheme

3. Greater Aizawl W.S.S. Phase II

2. It maybe mentioned here that the above three water supply schemes were taken up on turn key basis and the Respondent No. 6, M/s. Johnson Eastern Power, owned by Respondents No. 4 and 5, were the contractors. Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent No. 6 had no requisite experience and as such he was not eligible for award of the contract. The award of the contract to Respondent No. 6 has been challenged on the following counts:

1. The Respondent No. 6 formed a cartel with M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. Bangalore and some other companies and the term deposit/earnest money on their behalf was deposited by the Respondent No. 6.

2. The Respondent No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the contractor', for convenience sake) was not qualified or eligible to get the contract;

3. The contractor was black-listed earlier.

4. The Contractor is a close relation of Respondent No. 2 Mr. Dunglena, former Chief Engineer Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Mizoram; as per the advertisement, the estimated amount of the tender amount was Rs. 3,207 lacs only, whereas the contract was awarded for Rs. 9,932 lacs;

3. The Respondent State, as well as the Respondent Contractor, have filed separate affidavits-in-opposition denying the allegations, and the Respondent No. 6 has challenged the locus of the Petitioner, as well as, the maintainability of the present application as 'PIL'. Hence, before entering into the merits of the application, we propose to consider the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present 'PIL'. It may be mentioned here that this Writ petition was earlier dismissed by this Court and the matter was taken to Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) and it was remanded back with the following direction:

Leave granted.

In view of the nature of allegations made in this appeal, we had requested the learned Solicitor General to examine the allegations with reference to the documents, if any, and indicate whether there is an iota of truth in these allegations or not. He stated that this is a matter which the High Court should have examined and in that view of the matter the impugned order dismissing the petition in limine is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration. If the Appellant is unable to appear before the High Court or the High Court is not satisfied about the locus standi of the Appellant, then it may dispose of the matter by engaging an Amicus Curiae since it involves the interest of the State The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

4. Mr. D.K. Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 has submitted that the affidavit filed by the Petitioner shows that it was in his personal capacity and, therefore, this Court directed the Petitioner to file additional affidavit and accordingly, the Petitioner filed an additional affidavit along with certain documents, which shows that the Committee for National Integration is apolitical front of the Congress party, where all the office bearers, including the Advisors, patrons etc. are Congressmen and the present litigation is the outcome of the change of guards at Mizoram. It is further submitted in (para 16) the supplementary affidavit filed by the Petitioner that Petitioner got the information from four persons, named therein. The Respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition (Para 17) stat