A letter petition is not maintainable as a PIL if it is an anonymous letter and the petitioner's credentials are not verified.

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

This public interest litigation was registered on receipt of an undated letter addressed to a Judge of this Court by one Surajmal s/o Laduram resident of 3-M-89, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur alleging illegalities, misuse of power and corruption against the then Mayor of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation and her husband.

2. For the sake of brevity, we are referring to some of the allegations levelled against the Mayor. It is mentioned in the letter that the Mayor had misused her power and caused harm to the city of Jaipur by flouting the rules which were meant to preserve its heritage. Business activities are being carried out in the residential colonies and no efforts have been made by the Mayor to prevent them. The Mayor had violated the rules and regulations by illegally converting her residential house, which was in fact in the name of her father-in-law, into the Mayor's residence by issuing order dated 29.06.2010. The Mayor had also incurred expenditure of Rs.4.00 crores for renovation of this house which caused huge loss to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation. Newspaper reports regarding violation of the orders of this Court and allegations of misuse of power and corruption have also been attached to this letter. In the light of these allegations, it has been prayed that directions be issued to the Anti Corruption Bureau/Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Auditor General to conduct fair and impartial investigation in the matter.

3. The learned Judge of this Court upon receipt of this letter directed that the letter may be treated as letter petition. After orders of the Chief Justice, the petition was registered on 10.10.2014 and listed before the Bench having roster of public interest litigation and vide order dated 15.01.2015, notices were issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan respondent No.1, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department respondent No.2, Jyoti Khandelwal (Mayor) respondent No.3 and her husband Sharad Khandelwal respondent No.4.

4. In response to the notice, separate replies were filed by respondent No.3 & 4. No reply has been filed by other respondents except applications filed by the Municipal Corporation through its counsel to place on record certain documents including the report of the Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department dated 13.11.2014 and communication of the Anti Corruption Bureau dated 22.11.2012.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner at any stage of the case.

6. A perusal of the record indicates that the undated letter sent to a Judge of this Court has been treated as a public interest litigation. The author of the letter has indicated his address therein but no notice has been sent to him before the registration of the public interest litigation to enable him to file an affidavit in support of the contents of the letter so as to prove its authenticity. In terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. [(2010) 3 SCC 402], to prevent the misuse of PIL, the Rajasthan High Court has framed rules for regulating the public interest litigation vide notification dated 30.04.2010 which have been duly inserted in the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. The relevant extract of these Rules pertaining to entertainment of letter petitions is reproduced as under:

“Letter Petitions 385-J. Hearing of Letter Petitions on judicial side.-No Letter Petition shall be heard on judicial side unless registered as a PIL Petition in accordance with the procedure provided in this Chapter.

385-K. Letter Petition addressed to the Chief Justice or any Judge.-(a) Letter petition, addressed to the Chief Justice and directed by him to be registered as PIL Petition, shall be so registered.

(b)