S.M. Tangri v. Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited & ORS.

2- (7 $~A-3 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11607/2015 and CM No.30746/2015 (stay) S.M. TANGRI Petitioner Through:

Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate.

versus INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

Respondents Through:

Mr.Anuj Aggarwal and Mr.Shubhanshu Gupta, Advocates for R-2.

Mr.Vinay Sabharwal and Mr.S.Wazim A. Qadri, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

ORDER

% 21.12.2015 1.

This petition is filed seeking a writ of quo warranto holding that the appointment of respondent No.3 as Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) as well as his subsequent promotions and present appointment as Executive Director of Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd. are null and void alleging that the respondent No.3 did not possess the degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognized university or equivalent.

2.

Admittedly, the respondent No.3 was appointed in the year 1986 in the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was also in the service of erstwhile DESU and retired from service of Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited on attaining the age of superannuation. In fact, he was immediate junior to By:AMULYA

respondent No.3 while in service.

3.

In spite of the fact that the petitioner was also in the same service, it is not Icnown as to why he has not raised any objection all these years regarding the appointment of respondent No.3 without possessing the lequisite qualification. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner as to why he has taken up the cause at the fag end of service of respondent No.3 .

4.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the ease, the petitioner does not appear to be really interested in serving public good, but it appears to us that the petition is the outcome of personal rivaliy. The law is well settled that only persons acting bona fide have locus standi to maintain writ petitions as PIL.

5.

Hence, we decline to entertain this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE JAYANT NATH, J DECEMBER 21, 20I5/rb