DR R K CHOPRA Vs COLLEGE OF VOCATIONAL STUDIES & ORS.
W.P.(C) 668/2021 Page 1 of 4
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decisio n : 15th January, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 668/2021 & CM APPL.1617/2021
DR R K CHOPRA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Joby P. Varghese, Advocate
versus
COLLEGE OF VOCA TIONAL STUDIES & ORS…… Respondent s
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for R -1 & 3
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
:
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following
prayers : D. N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
Proceedings in the matter have been conducted throu gh video
conferencing.
(1). Call for the records of the case;
(2). Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other like writ, order or
direction in nature thereof directing Respondent No.1 to
consider the representation dated 03.09.2020 submitted by the
Petitioner and to constitute an independent inquiry committee
consisting of a Retired Judge of this Hon’ble Court to conduct
an independent probe into various irregularities and acts of
corruption committed by the Principal forming part
2021:DHC:189-DB
W.P.(C) 668/2021 Page 2 of 4
Complaints made by the Petitioner, and;
(3). Quash the Minutes of the Governing Body meeting of the
Respondent No.1 College dated 25.03.2019 to the extent whereby the Complaints preferred by the Petitio ner qua the
irregularities and corruption of Dr.Inderjeet Dagar
(Principal) was closed;
(4). Pass such order or further order(s) as may be deemed fit
and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. We have heard learned counsels for the part ies and look ed in to the
facts and circumstances of the case . Petitioner herein is a retired Associate
Professor of Respondent No.1. It is evident that even after retirement, the
petitioner is continuing to prefer repeated complaints with the Respondents
against the Principal of respondent No. 1 /College . According to the
petitioner, he has been making complaints against the alleged irregularities
committed by the Principal , since 2005 but no action has been taken on his
complaints.
3. Counsel appearing for Res pondent Nos.1 and 3 submit s that the
petitioner is a retired and disgruntled employee of Respondent No.1. While
in service he was aspiring to be the principal of the College , however, he
was not appoin ted due to lack of merits . Subsequently, the petitioner made
efforts to have his daughter appointed in the College , but was unsucces sful.
It is further submitte d by counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 that it is out of
sheer vendetta that the p etitioner is contin uing to make false and frivolous
complaints and i s harassing the respondents. It is pointed out that as many as
500 RTI applications and 100 complaints have been preferred by the
petitioner .
2021:DHC:189-DB
W.P.(C) 668/2021 Page 3 of 4
4. Learned counsel for the respo ndents also submits that on receipt of
the complaints, a Multi Member Committee was constituted by Respondent
Nos.1 and 3 to look into the complaints of the p etitioner. Vide minutes dated
25th March, 2019, the Governing Body comprising of 7 Members h as
accepted the Report of the 3 Member Fact Finding Committee and found the
complaints to be basel ess. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 and 3 that there is no substance in th is writ petition and
the same b e dismissed with costs as no public interest is involved in this writ
petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsels f or both sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is not a Public
Interest Litigation at all
6. A 3 Member Fact Findi ng Committee was constituted by Respondent
No.1 and as per the report the complaints were without any basis. The
Report has been accepted by the Governing Body of respondent No. 1 as it
agreed with the conclusion and finding of the Fact Finding Committee. . It al so appears from the facts of the case that this
petitioner for any reason whatsoever either because he was not appoi nted as
Princ ipal or because h is daughter was not appointed as Professor or Lecturer
or for any other reason best known to the p etitioner, af ter his retirement in
the year 2015 continued filing several complaints with the Respondents.
7. In view of these facts and circumstances, we see no reason to
entertain this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. This is in fact a
Private Interest Litigation. Hence, th e writ petition is hereby dismissed with
costs of Rs.5,000/ – to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi State Legal
Service s Authority , within s ix weeks from today. The aforesaid amount
2021:DHC:189-DB
W.P.(C) 668/2021 Page 4 of 4
shall be utilized for the programme ‘Access to Justice’.
8. A copy of this orde r be sent forthwith to the Member Secretary, Delhi
State Legal Servi ces Authority, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
9. Pending application also stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH , J
JANUARY 15, 2021
yg
2021:DHC:189-DB