2022 (5) TMI 186 - HC - GST

PIL - Allegation of misuse / spending money for conducing annual conferences by Revenue department - Seeking injunction restraining the 3 rd respondent from conducting the SANKALP - HELD THAT - This petition, even remotely can not be said to be in public interest. On the contrary, it is against the interest of the citizen of our State, which has ultimately brought only disrepute to us, by such petition and further it may be perceived as an adversity on the Central / State relationship as well. For all these reasons, it is found that, such attempts need to be nipped in the bud. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed and further that the said dismissal has to be with costs, with due intimation to the concerned respondent. This writ petition is dismissed, with cost.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the venue selection for a government conference in a private hotel - Allegations of misuse of public funds and corruption - Petition styled as public interest litigation - Request for injunction to restrain the conference at the private venue.

Analysis:
The petitioner, involved in social service activities, filed a public interest litigation challenging the selection of a private hotel as the venue for a government conference. The petitioner alleged misuse of public funds, highlighting the significant expenses incurred for the event at the private hotel. The petitioner emphasized the availability of government-owned venues for such conferences, suggesting a more cost-effective approach. The petitioner raised concerns about the choice of venue, particularly the high costs involved, and the perceived lack of transparency in the decision-making process.

The court examined the petitioner's contentions, including the claim of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to the alleged concession given by the hotel to the government officials. The court noted the petitioner's efforts to bring the issue to the attention of the concerned authorities, seeking a change in the venue. However, the court found the petition not genuinely in the public interest, expressing concerns about the negative impact on the state's reputation and the central-state relationship. The court concluded that dismissing such petitions promptly was necessary to prevent adverse consequences.

In its judgment, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that it was against the state's interest and ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the first respondent within four weeks. The court directed the payment to be made through a Demand Draft along with an apology letter. The compliance with the cost payment was scheduled for reporting on a specified date. The court's decision highlighted the importance of discouraging such petitions that could potentially harm public interests and relationships between different levels of governance.