AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the writ-petitioner and learned counsel for the parties.
Espousing a public cause the writ-petitioner who is a practicing Advocate in this Court rests the foundation of the writ petition on two distinct pillars.
The first is that the first respondent, who is the Chairperson of LIC, is refusing to part with information concerning money spent by LIC for
advertisements in the Financial Years 2013-2014 till 2017-2018. He alleges that as per his estimate `500 crores was spent on Media Budget
Allocations which was a scam. The petitioner relies upon information sought under Right to Information Act and its response thereto. The response is
that information regarding money spent on advertisement could be accessed from the website and as regards whether LIC had any rules for allocation
of funds for advertisements, the answer was that there are none.
The second pillar is a report published in the Indian Express under the caption:- “Fraud effect: LIC, investor in PNB, Gitanjali, loses Rs. 1400/-
crores in three days.â€
Beneath the caption is the reporting that LIC owns 13.93% in PNB, 13.24% in Union Bank of India and 13.17% in Allahabad Bank, it also owns
2.88% in Gitanjali Gems, a company which was promoted by one Nirav Modi and one Mehul Choksi.
On aforesaid two pillars the petitioner wants a direction to be issued to CBI to investigate the scam.
On the first issue, the petitioner has done no research. If the petitioner has researched it would have dawned upon him that there exits IRDA
(Insurance Advertisements and Disclosure) Regulations, 2015. If only the petitioner had looked into the balance sheets of the LIC which are available
for public access he would have know that the percentage of the budgetary allocations for advertisement vis-a-vis the revenue generated by LIC is
between 0.13% to 0.16% of total revenue.
In what manner said percentage of revenue on advertisement would constitute a scam? There are no pleadings. To whom was the money paid?
There are no pleadings.
On the second issue, suffice it to note that the newspaper report brings out the fall in the value of the shares of PNB, Union Bank of India and
Allahabad Bank in which LIC owns a stake and probable loss on money advanced to Gitanjali Gems. There are no pleadings that the first respondent
was directly involved when the said three Banks advanced loans to Gitanjali Gems. Surely, as an investor in the shares of the three Banks, LIC nor of
its Chairperson would be personally liable if there are any acts of omission or commission by the three Banks in making advances. That leaves only
2.88% stake in Gitanjali Gems which as per the newspaper report are directly held by LIC. There are no averments in writ petition as to when was
the investment made by LIC. There are no averments as to who took the decision. There are no averments concerning powers of the Chairperson
and the Board of Directors of the LIC concerning financial investment.
We find the writ petition to be summary and cursory in nature. That apart, there is another reason to dismiss the writ petition. The petitioner has
filed a complaint before a Magistrate invoking Section 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He made similar allegations therein. The Magistrate has
directed vide order dated 16.02.2018 that a report from the local police be obtained.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
All pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.