JAGRAM Vs. GWALIOR T AND C DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue a writ of Quo Warranto or of Mandamus, the petitioner demands of this Court. Counsel vocally and vociferously pleads petitioner's case to invoke our jurisdiction on Writ Side to serve what he calls a 'public cause'. Public money is being squandered, which must stop. Third respondent is a public functionary, who must not be allowed at public cost, to oblige his friend, the fourth respondent. Appointment of fourth respondent as the Financial Advisor of Gwalior Town and Country Development Authority is challenged in this petition. But, the question is, can we accept petitioner's claim that by this challenge, he is fighting 'Public Interest' litigation ?

(2.) We heard counsel for the petitioner at length. We also heard counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents pursuant to the notices issued to them. Returns having also been filed, it presented us no difficulty in disposing of the matter at the threshold. But, the petitioner having agitated question of general importance, we assured counsel that we shall write a reasoned judgement though we had taken the view that the petition merits dismissal at the threshold.

(3.) Now, the facts, there are few, but pregnant. Petitioner admits in his petition that he is an ex-employee of first respondent, Gwalior Town and Country Development Authority, hereinafter the 'Authority'. The admitted position also is that third respondent holds the Office of the Chairman of the Authority. The crucial allegation in the petition that the third and fourth respondents are friends is, however, not admitted by the said respondent in their returns. On the other hand, there is a lot written in the returns about petitioner's 'motive'. His bona fides are challenged stating that petitioner was discharged as a result of disciplinary enquiry, held by the fourth respondent and he is now trying to settle scores abusing this Court's process.