DEVINDER PAWAR Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present petition claims to be a journalist and Chief Editor of a weekly newspaper "Meri Kalam". By way of the present petition, he has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Member (Water Supply) of Delhi Jal Board and prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Quo Warranto for quashing the (Signer's identity unknown) Signed by Naresh Mehta Time: 2009.05.11 10:53:50 +05'30' Reason: Location: appointment of respondent No. 2 as Member (Water Supply), Delhi Jal Board.

(2.) IT is the allegation of the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Member (Water Supply) was mala fide, illegal and the requisite procedure for reemployment had not been followed. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he had come to know from his journalistic sources that respondent No. 2 had been found to be guilty of misconduct by the State of Haryana and a major penalty had been imposed and since the respondent No. 2 had already retired, a penalty of 50% cut in pension had been imposed on him by the State of Haryana. It was also the case of the petitioner that the office of Member(Water Supply) DJB is a public office and that respondent No. 2 was holding on to the said post in clear violation of the statutory provisions inasmuch as the post of Member (Water Supply) can be held by only a serving engineer, drawing salary in the scale of Joint Secretary to Government of India. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 2 did not fulfil the criteria laid down in Section 3 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1988 and was accordingly an usurper of the post of Member (Water Supply) against which a writ of Quo Warranto would lie.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 in its affidavit also stated that M/s.Kaveri infrastructure Pvt. Limited was awarded work some time in 2005 by the Delhi Jal Board and an FIR was registered by the CBI against the contractor. The registration of FIR by the CBI led to a decision by the Delhi Jal Board not to permit the contractor to participate in future tendering. This was challenged by the contractor and subsequently, in the SLP filed by the Respondent No. 1 -DJB before the Supreme Court, the Court was pleased to direct the Delhi Jal Board vide order dated 14th March, 2008 to render a decision on blacklisting the contractor subject to affording a hearing to him. In terms of the said order, the Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Jal Board had appointed a committee comprising respondent No. 2 amongst others to grant personal hearing to the contractor. After personal hearing, vide order dated 28th March, 2008 the said Committee recommended that the contractor be not allowed to participate in the tendering process till the outcome of investigation being carried out by the CBI is made known to Delhi Jal Board. Consequent upon the said recommendation an order dated 28th March, 2008 was issued by the respondent No. 2 conveying the decision that the contractor shall not to be allowed to participate in the tendering process till such time the outcome of the investigation being carried out by the CBI was made known to the Delhi Jal Board. As per the respondent No. 1/Delhi Jal Board it was because of this decision the contractor felt disturbed and ever since he has been launching one personal attack after another against the officials of Delhi Jal Board and all concerned, either in person or through others like the present petitioner. The Delhi Jal Board also alleged that the sinister design of the contractor was evident from the fact that he had utilized the petitioner, who claims himself to be a journalist, in the past in seeking information through RTI from Delhi Jal Board on the same issues as that of the contractor himself. Copies of the RTI applications filed by the contractor and the petitioner on identical issues are annexed to the counter affidavit of the Delhi Jal Board as Annexure R -2 collectively.