Umesh Kumar vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In this public interest litigation, filed in the form of a writ petition, Petitioner is asking this Court to direct free and fair independent inquiry by an independent agency of the Central Government, like Central Bureau of Investigation, pertaining to alleged misappropriation of public money by the State Government, its agencies and other Respondents to the writ petition while utilizing the funds provided to the State Government by the Central Government for organizing Maha Kumbh Mela conducted in the last year. The one and the only basis of the allegation that there is misappropriation of public money, is a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Surprisingly, however, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has not been made a party to the writ petition. On the last occasion, when this writ petition was listed, we expressed that we are not inclined to admit the writ petition, when the learned Counsel sought seven days'' time to give a fresh look into the matter and, accordingly, we adjourned the matter until today. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed highlighting those parts of the said report which suggest misappropriation of funds. We need not deal with all the points highlighted in the said supplementary affidavit, for none of those suggest misappropriation of funds. At the best, the report and its assemblage contained in the supplementary affidavit highlights failure on the part of several departments of the State Government to achieve the highest standard of performance. Those also highlight certain doubts but without indicating the basic ingredients for expressing such doubts. They suggest loss, but the basic facts indicating loss, to our mind, do not in fact suggest loss. It has been contended that the Tender Advisory Committee without conducting cost benefit analysis, negotiated and entered into an agreement with a firm to provide on rent tin/tentage to three major departments by reducing the price by five per cent with payment of taxes extra and as a result, the rates quoted by the firm in Notice Inviting Tender was enhanced by 8.59 per cent. This was sought to be demonstrated, as indicated in the report, by stating as follows:

100-5 = 95+14.3% tax (4% VAT and 10.3% service tax) = 108.59-100 = 8.59%.

We think, as any prudent person should think, including an Auditor, that the calculation ought to have had been made in the manner as follows:

100+14.3% tax = 114.3-108.59 = 5.71% gain.

It was also contended that some of the temporary toilets constructed by Sulabh International Social Service Organization were not found. The report stated that the said organization, while constructing temporary toilets, erected permanent brick and cement wall and as a result cost of construction was increased. At the same time, it was reported that out of 97 locations, where the said organization had taken up construction work, at two locations deficiency of construction of 11 toilets was noticed with the observation "as would be evident from above table, variations at other locations also could not be ruled out, being temporary work". In other words, the report suggested that Sulabh did not construct all toilets by using brick and cement. Some of them were constructed without them and those toilets were not to remain after the Mela was over.

In the circumstances, on the basis of the said report in respect of which there are many a queries, which unfortunately cannot be had in the absence of the maker of the report, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer of the Petitioner, as the Court, even in a Public Interest Litigation, can not indulge in wild goose chase.

The writ petition accordingly fails and the same is dismissed.

It is hoped and expected that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, in view of the mandate contained in Article 151 of the Constitution of India, has already submitted its report to the appropriate authority mentioned in the said Article and if it has not done so, it will do so as quickly as possible, whereupon the authority mentioned in the said Article shall place the same before the appropriate forum mentioned in the said Article.