Bikram Mohanty vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Sujit Burman Roy, C.J.—The petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person has filed this Writ Application with the following prayer:

It is therefore, prayed that this Hon''ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Petition and to issue a Rule NISI to show cause as to :

(i) why the actions of the Opp. Parties by calling for the tender under Annexure-4 will not be declared as a wrong and illegal; and

(ii) why a Writ of mandamus will not be issued to the Opp. Parties to stop the chain-link-fencing work around Paradeep Oil Refinary Project as the same is not necessary and caused the loss of public money; and

If the Opp. Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing an appropriate Writ/direction/ order(s) as the circumstances justified.

Mr. S.S. Das, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. being an undertaking of the Government of India, has decided to establish an Oil Refinary Project, at Paradeep and on 29.7.1999 it called for tenders for construction of Chain-link-fencing around its land/Paradeep Refinary Project at the estimated cost above Rs. 4.79 crores. The said work was entrusted to the successful tenderer who constructed the Chain-link-fencing, but the Corporation did not take effective steps to protect the said fencing for which the anti-socials and mischief mongers committed theft of portions of the said fence consisting of iron angles etc. He further submits that the Corporation without taking steps to save public property, again issued a tender call notice on 17.5.2004 for execution of the balance Chain-link-fencing work at the estimated cost of Rs. 3,10 lakhs and the said work has been settled in favour of M/s. Deepak Construction of Kolkata. Mr. Das further submits that since there is a permanent R.C.C. compound wall around the Oil Refinary Project, there is no necessity of constructing Chain-link-fencing, but the Opp. Parties by their action are squandering away public money.

A counter affidavit has been filed by Opp. Parties 2 & 3. Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 per contra submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are factually incorrect inasmuch as the present application has no characteristic of Public Interest Litigation and is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner who appears to be either a busy body or a person set up by one of the unsuccessful tenderers.

Considering the submissions made we find that the petitioner has absolutely no locus standi to call in question the action of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in taking steps for construction of Chain-link-fencing nor any right of the petitioner has been infringed for which he can maintain the present Writ Application. The Writ Application, as laid down, cannot be considered as a Public Interest Litigation. Hence, we find no merit in this Writ Application, which is accordingly, dismissed.

M.M. Das, J.

I agree.