The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining high standards of responsibility in public interest litigations and the requirement of locus standi for filing such petitions.

S.S. SARON, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Punjab through its Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1) to get investigation of the Canteen Purchase Scam regarding purchase of daily needs goods for the prisoners of twenty-eight Central Jails of Punjab conducted from the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) or some high level Special Investigation Team (SIT).

2. According to the petitioner, the jail authorities with the connivance of high profile officials have been running this racket in the purchase of daily needs for the Jail canteens in Punjab since long and have been purchasing unhygienic goods at higher prices from unapproved stores in grave violation of the Punjab Government Canteen Management Rules, 1965 ('the Canteen Rules' - for short), the Punjab Financial Rules ('the Financial Rules' - for short) and the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab from time to time; besides, without inviting any quotation or tenders. It is submitted that in the last three years purchases have been made of about Rs.100 crores in violation of the mandatory Canteen Rules.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner wants to expose before this Court a big 'Canteen Purchase Scam' going on all over the Central Jails of Punjab in purchasing unhygienic daily needs and canteen goods for the prisoners at very high rates from an unapproved store i.e. 'Metro Store', without calling any tender, E-tender, quotation and without comparison of the prices with other whole sellers in deliberate violations of the relevant provisions and the Canteen Rules as also in violation of the latest directions dated 13.03.2015 issued by the Punjab Government.

4. The petitioner states that he is an honest person and was appointed as Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Jalandhar at Kapurthala on 30.05.2013. As an intelligent officer his work and conduct was appreciated. He was given many commendation certificates and was even felicitated on Independence Day. During his duties he played a vital role to eliminate various evil activities from the society. It is submitted that the Ex-Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab (respondent No. 6) had also granted him Class-I certificate and cash rewards after appraising his services. Commendation certificates (Annexure P-1 colly.) that were granted to him have been placed on record.

5. The petitioner was assigned the charge of Welfare Officer at Central Jail, Kapurthala on 02.08.2014. Thereafter, he was posted at Central Jail, Faridkot. It is during his posting at Central Jail, Faridkot that he found embezzlement of crores of rupees being committed on procurement of daily needs material for Welfare Canteens across the Punjab. There were many irregularities in the purchases that were made. The authorities had been purchasing unhygienic expired goods from an unapproved store i.e. 'Metro store'. The purchases were made without inviting any tender/quotation from any source for the purpose of rate comparison. The entire activity was in violation of the Punjab Government Canteen Rules; the Financial Rules and the directions issued by the Government from time to time.

6. The petitioner earlier filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. M-11007 of 2016, which was withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedy as available under the law, including the filing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Accordingly, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.03.2016, giving the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. It is thereafter that the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed.

7. In the matter of Public Interest Litigation, the provisions of the Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 ('PIL Rules' – for short) as framed by this Court are applica