High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 12 SIK CK 0019

Sushil Rai vs State Of Sikkim & Ors

Sikkim High Court · Decided on 13 December 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Biswanath Somadder, CJ · Meenakshi Madan Rai, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 02 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 359 words

Biswanath Somadder, CJ

This petition is sought to be moved as a Public Interest Litigation by one Sushil Rai. The petition was affirmed and filed on 02nd November, 2022. The issue of “public interest” sought to be brought to the notice of this Court is with regard to the Government of Sikkim’s decision to award supply of medicines and consumables for the year 2021 to only five vendors, excluding others. The contentious memo which the writ petitioner seeks to refer to, in this regard, is the memo dated 22nd June, 2020.

When we took up this matter on 24th November, 2022 — while adjourning the matter till today — we had requested the learned Additional Advocate General to take instructions from his clients in the meanwhile.

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Advocate General submits, on instructions, that Sushil Rai, the writ petitioner is just a proxy. In fact, the wife of the learned advocate for the petitioner — who is appearing in this matter — is a vendor/supplier of medicines who did not get a favourable award from the Government of Sikkim — as will appear from the contentious memo dated 22nd June, 2020 — which has prompted filing of the instant writ petition in the name of Sushil Rai.

At this juncture, we sought a response from the learned advocate for the petitioner as to whether he would like to press forward with the matter or seek leave of Court to withdraw the instant writ petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner prayed for a couple of minutes’ time in order to take instructions. He now submits, on instructions, that his client does not desire to prosecute the matter and seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.

While we grant the writ petitioner leave to withdraw the writ petition and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, we would like to make an observation that time has come to put a full stop to misuse of the public interest jurisdiction of High Courts in the manner in which it was sought to be misused in the present case.