SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Sikk) 93

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
BISWANATH SOMADDER, C.J., MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
Mani Kumar Subba - Petitioner 
Versus 
State of Sikkim and Others – Respondents
WP (PIL) No.01 of 2024
Decided On : 15-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anindya Basu, Mr. Yam Kumar Subba and Mr. Mukkum Hang Limboo, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Advocate General, Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate, Mr. Anubhav Sinha, Ms. Dhatri Bandaru and Mr. Rinzing Dorjee Tamang, Advocates, Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Government Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms. Sittal Balmiki and Ms. Natasha Pradhan, Advocates.

A public interest litigation is not maintainable if it is shown to be politically motivated or filed for personal gain. Courts will not substitute their judgment for executive economic policies unless there is a clear violation of a constitutional or statutory provision.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Requirement of bona fide action vs political motivation - Petitioner acting for personal gain or political objectives - Court must exercise caution to prevent abuse of process of law in the guise of public interest - A litigant in public interest must disclose credentials and show a history of public service to establish locus standi. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

(B) Economic Policy - Disinvestment of government interest in commercial enterprises - Judicial Review - It is not within the domain of the court to question the wisdom of executive decisions regarding economic policy or commercial ventures - Judicial interference is warranted only in cases of clear violation of statutory or constitutional provisions. (Paras 5, 6, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a political party representative, filed a public interest litigation challenging a cabinet decision regarding the disinvestment of equity shares of a power-related public sector undertaking. The petitioner alleged that the decision was arbitrary, bypassed established disinvestment procedures, and resulted in financial loss to the state. The respondents contended that the petition was politically motivated, filed immediately prior to general elections, and lacked the requisite criteria for a genuine public interest litigation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner failed to disclose any history of public service or credentials and that there was an absence of evidence demonstrating bona fide intent. The court determined that the petition was an attempt to seek political advantage rather than a legitimate challenge to protect the rights of the public. The court found no statutory or constitutional violation justifying interference in the economic policy of the state.

Issues: Whether the petition qualifies as a bona fide public interest litigation and whether the executive decision concerning complex economic policy is subject to judicial interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Public interest litigation is a mechanism intended to protect the rights of vulnerable or disadvantaged persons. It is not a tool for settling political rivalries or challenging economic policy decisions. Courts must reject petitions brought by litigants whose primary intent is to seek personal or political leverage rather than to uphold public interest, especially where the petitioner fails to come to court with clean hands.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the public interest litigation and preliminary procedural history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties' contentions regarding the maintainability of the petition and the merits of the economic decision. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. standards and criteria for maintainability of a public interest litigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. non-interference of judiciary in economic policy matters without statutory or constitutional violation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The petitioner by way of this Public Interest Litigation seeks a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs/direction for quashing the impugned decision of the Cabinet, dated 03-02-2024, of the respondent no.1, where it was decided to disinvest 60.08% equity share of respondent no.6 [Sikkim Power Investment Corporation Limited (SPICL)], in respondent no.5 [M/s Sikkim Urja Limited (SUL)] to respondent no.8 (M/s Greenko Enterprises Private Limited), along with disinvestment of respondent no.7 (Sikkim Power Valley Transmission Limited, now Power Valley Transmission Limited). According to the petitioner, this is in contravention of the hydro policy of the respondent no.1, State of Sikkim, as contained in the letter of intent issued to the respondent no.4 (M/s Athena Projects Pvt. Ltd.), by the respondent no.2 (Power Department, Government of Sikkim) and the implementation agreement, dated 18-07-2005, between the respondent no.1 (State of Sikkim) and respondent no.5 (SUL), concerning the development of 1200 Megawatts (MW), Teesta — III Hydro Electric Project, at Chungthang, Rule 27 of the Sikkim Financial (Amendment) Rules, 2006, Office Memoranda dated 19- 04-2022 and 14-09-2022 and against prescribed procedure for disinvestment.

2. Vide order dated 14-03-2024, this Court inter alia ordered that;...................... We make it clear that all points raised by the learned Advocate General including the point of maintainability of the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation are kept open to be decided at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. .................. The point of maintainability is accordingly taken up.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed the contention that the petitioner, a citizen of India and a resident of Sikkim, is involved in public life and at the time of filing the writ petition was holding the post of the chief spokesperson of the longest serving party in the State, i.e., Sikkim Democratic Front Party. The petitioner has no personal on private motive in filing the instant petition, which is against the impugned Cabinet decision, dated 03-02-2024, which is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and against public interest. The project (supra) was generating high revenue for the State till the Dam was destroyed by flash floods, which occurred on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th October, 2023, due to the outburst of the South Lonak Lake. The State Government bypassed the disinvestment policy, which, inter alia, postulates selection of Advisors, advertisement in newspapers inviting bidders, valuation of the PSU, recommendation of the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment, discussion with the Advisor and ultimately reporting the matter to the Accountant General of India. After the State Cabinet cleared the disinvestment proposal, the selection was to have been made through competitive bidding, which was ignored. It was further urged that, the disinvestment was contrary to the office memorandum, dated 19-04-2022, of the Department of Investment and Public Asset Management Disinvestment (DIPAM), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, on participation of Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) [Central/State/Joint]/State Governments/Cooperative Societies controlled by the Governments in strategic disinvestment of other public sector enterprises. The decision to disinvest was also contrary to the office memorandum, dated 14-09-2022, on ―Guiding principles for strategic disinvestment/ minority stake sale of subsidiaries/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top