Back
2018 Supreme(Sikk) 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
Satish K. Agnihotri, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ.
Shri Puran Alley - Appellant
Vs.
State of Sikkim - Respondent
W.P. (PIL) No. 06 of 2018
Decided On : 24-05-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. B. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bholanath Sharma, Adv.
Unsubstantiated allegations cannot be entertained in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and the court cannot interfere with governmental policies unless they violate constitutional or statutory provisions.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Tender Process - Right to Information Act, 2005 - [Setting up of Sikkim State Museum] - [Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 4] - The court dismissed the petition claiming that the setting up of a State museum is not in public interest and that the funds should be diverted for other public purposes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a law graduate, filed a petition claiming favoritism and malpractice in the tender process for setting up the Sikkim State Museum. The petitioner alleged that the tender process was carried out dehors the existing laws of the land and sought the cancellation of the entire tender process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's allegations were unsubstantiated and made without any basis or coherence. It held that the setting up of a museum is a policy decision of the government and is not open to judicial review unless it violates constitutional or statutory provisions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged favoritism and malpractice in the tender process for setting up the Sikkim State Museum, as well as the petitioner's claim that the funds should be diverted for other public purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations cannot be entertained in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and that there must be a real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation. It also highlighted that the executive is primarily responsible for formulating governmental policies, and the court cannot interfere unless the policy violates constitutional or statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed in limine, and no orders as to costs were given.
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
Heard. Mr. Puran Allay, a law graduate but not practicing as an Advocate has preferred the present petition claiming to be an unemployed youth and engaged in doing social work for the upliftment of Sikkim. There are no details of the social works the Petitioner has been doing in the past. The Petitioner claims that after his graduation when he came back to Sikkim in the year 2013 he observed that there was no overall development in the State and the money received from the Center had not been utilized in the proper place for the upliftment of the downtrodden people of Sikkim. There is no further clarification to this broad spectrum allegation. It is his plea that whenever he would visit remote areas he would notice poor people staying in deplorable condition and thus was anxious to find out the exact reason as to why despite the Central Government providing funds the people of Sikkim have not been proportionately uplifted. Besides the allegation there are no facts pleaded or proof submitted to substantiate the allegations. The Petitioner claims that he started doing research in the matter and came across shortcomings in the functioning of the Governmental machineries. The Petitioner claims that those short coming were that the funds were utilized on non productive schemes; there was no proper allocation of funds to such schemes which would directly benefit the Shri Puran Alley v. State of Sikkim & Ors. downtrodden; the funds were provided for religious matters; funds were not provided for construction of roads, electricity, establishment of specialized hospitals, schools, research work, technical education, medical facilities etc. which are the basic requirements of the people. There is not a single document filed with the Writ Petition to substantiate the statements made about the Petitioner's perceptions of the said shortcomings.
2. It is claimed by the Petitioner that while doing research the Petitioner came across one Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) published in Sikkim Herald, Sikkim Reporter and Dainik Mirmiray. The Petitioner therefore, sought for copy of the "NIT" under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Petitioner was furnished with copy of the "NIT" published in Sikkim Herald on 25.05.2017 and 30.05.2017, Sikkim Reporter on 26.05.2017 and Dainik Mirmiray on 26.05.2017. On a perusal of the "NIT", the Petitioner claims he was shocked to notice that the publication of the "NIT" was done in a casual manner. The Petitioner claims that the publication of the tender has not been done in widely circulated papers or National dailies in so far as the Petitioner's knowledge goes but also states in the same breadth that the publication shows that it was published in e-tender. It is the perception of the Petitioner that only a handful of contractors are conversant with computer knowledge. Yet another grievance of the Petitioner is that the tender does not disclose the nature of work, schedule of work, compliance of Sikkim Works Manual, compliance of Sikkim Shri Puran Alley v. State of Sikkim & Ors. Financial Rules and other related laws and other details. Mr. B. Sharma, Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner could not point out any such non-compliance from the records of the case. The Petitioner states that he also received one Addendum dated 02.06.2017 as well as Corrigendum dated 05.07.2017 through the process of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner claims that on examining the Invitation for Bids dated 23.05.2017, the Addendum dated 02.06.2017 and Corrigendum dated 05.07.2017 the Petitioner came to learn how public money from the Government exchequer had been embezzled. It is the case of the Petitioner that the aforesaid three documents makes it clear that the entire exercise of the tender process was undertaken to accommodate Respondent No.4 in order to give him "favouritism". It is alleged that the Respondent No.4 did not even participate in the pre-bid meeting and in spite
