Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 37 (MEG)

Wanbok S. Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya

2017-06-02

DINESH MAHESHWARI, VED PRAKASH VAISH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, J. On being pointed out that this petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation ['PIL'], suffers from a fundamental flaw of want of essential averments, as required by Clause (f) of Rule 10 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2013, to the effect that the petitioner has means to pay the cost, if any imposed by the Court and an undertaking in that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking instructions, seeks permission to withdraw with liberty to file afresh. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection in so far the prayer for withdrawal is concerned. 3. In the totality of circumstances, though we are inclined to grant permission to withdraw with observations but, while closing the matter, deem it appropriate to indicate in a nut-shell few of the relevant background aspects. 4. In this petition, filed as a PIL, the petitioner has attempted to suggest the shortcomings and infirmities in the contract for supply and fixing of High Security Number Plates, as awarded by the respondent No. 1 - State of Meghalaya to the respondent No. 7 - Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited while also indicating that there were certain investigations pending in regard to the affairs of respondent No. 7 and the persons in-charge thereof. This apart, it has also been indicated that the cost of such High Security Number Plates in the neighbouring States is much lower than that being charged in the State of Meghalaya. 5. This petition was initially entertained on 19.05.2015 but after a few adjournments, it was pointed on 15.06.2015 before the Division Bench of this Court that a petition seeking transfer of the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been entertained and further proceedings herein were stayed. Hence, the proceedings in this petition were kept in abeyance awaiting orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, this matter came up before this Court only on 28.03.2017 upon the respondent No. 7 filing a detailed affidavit and placing on record the subsequent events, including the order dated 29.03.2016 in WP(C) No. 857 of 2013 whereby, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition said to have been filed by the Association of Reg. Plates Mfg. of India against the respondent No. 7 in the relation to the same contract. Plates Mfg. of India against the respondent No. 7 in the relation to the same contract. The said petition was not entertained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was dismissed with the short order thus: "The writ petition is dismissed". 6. The respondent No. 7 has also placed on record another order dated 05.01.2017 whereby, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the transfer petition as infructuous because earlier, the matter was proposed to be transferred to the Supreme Court for analogous hearing with WP(C) No. 857 of 2013 but the said petition had been dismissed, as noticed above. The respondent No. 7 has further placed on record another order dated 12.01.2016 as passed in Civil Appeal No. 179 of 2016 (arising out of SLP No. 11652 of 2012) whereby, the Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WP(C) No. 7447 of 2011 after finding no reason for directions for investigation by the Criminal Bureau of Investigation or for prohibition against the present respondent No. 7 for participation in the tender process relating to High Security Number Plates. The respondent No. 7 has attempted to make out by way of his affidavit dated 27.03.2017 that essentially, the litigations as indicated by the present petitioner, are not surviving or have been decided in its favour. 7. On 28.03.2017, upon examination of the matter from all angles, we indicated the desirability of some reduction of rates on the part of the respondent No.7 in relation to the State of Meghalaya but granted time to the learned counsel for the parties to complete all their instructions. Thereafter, on 17.04.2017, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 candidly submitted that the respondent-contractor had made an offer to the State Government for some such reduction of rates; and the learned Government Advocate submitted that the appropriate decision on such an offer would be taken at the earliest. Ultimately, on 20.04.2017, it was pointed out that the Government had accepted the proposal of respondent No. 7 for reduction of such rates. These facts were taken note of but we adjourned the matter for unavailability of the learned counsel for respondent No. 7 with the following order: "Learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Mr. Ultimately, on 20.04.2017, it was pointed out that the Government had accepted the proposal of respondent No. 7 for reduction of such rates. These facts were taken note of but we adjourned the matter for unavailability of the learned counsel for respondent No. 7 with the following order: "Learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Mr. K. Khan submits that the offer made by the respondent - contractor for some reduction of the rates of "High Security Registration Plates" has been considered and accepted by the Government of Meghalaya today. The learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate has produced before us a copy of the letter of acceptance issued by the Government today; the same is taken on record. It goes without saying that with such an offer having been accepted by the Government of Meghalaya, the rates for "High Security Registration Plates" shall stand reduced with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to make further submissions in this matter but an adjournment is sought on the ground that the arguing counsel for the respondent - contractor is not available today. List the matter for hearing on 02.06.2017, as prayed." 8. Thus, modification of rates having been brought about, the same shall remain binding on the parties. 9. Upon taking up this matter today, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 has raised a preliminary objection that this petition deserves not to be continued essentially because the same cause was sought to be taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No. 857 of 2013 that was specifically dismissed on 29.03.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has attempted to counter with the contentions that by the order dated 29.03.2016, the petition was not dismissed on merits and the only deduction is that the Supreme Court declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, however, as noticed at the outset, the present petition does not carry the fundamental requisite averments and undertaking; and on being pointed out such fundamental flaws, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought permission to withdraw with liberty to file afresh. 10. 10. As regards the liberty to file afresh, suffice it to observe that the present matter was filed as a PIL and we are permitting its withdrawal for want of such averments which are not the matters of technicality but are fundamental to the maintainability of a PIL in this Court. 11. In the totality of circumstances, we see no reason to extend any liberty to the petitioner as prayed for; suffice it would be to observe that any fresh petition in regard to this matter, filed as PIL or otherwise, would be considered in accordance with law applicable thereto. 12. With the observations foregoing, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw and this petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.