JUDGMENT
K. Sreedharan, C.J.
1. Gujarat Electricity Board (“GEB” for brevity) invited tenders for sale of 1,50,000 Mts of coal reject from Wanakbori Thermal Power Station. The petitioner purchased a tender form. But he did not offer to purchase the coal reject. Respondent no. 3 submitted his tender. That was the highest tender. Consequently, right to lift the coal reject was given to respondent No. 3. According to tender form, coal reject was to be lifted as per the schedule mentioned therein. During November to May the contractor was to lift 15,000 MTs to 18,000 MTs and during monsoon 3,000 Mts per month. In case the above quantity is not lifted ground rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per MT was to be realised.
2. After finalising the contract on the basis of the above conditions, it is averred by the petitioner that GEB rescheduled the quantity of coal reject to be lifted and thereby gave material benefits to
respondent No. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that GEB did not realise the ground rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month per MT of coal from respondent No. 3 on account of its failure to stick to the schedule fixed for lifting the same. The right given to respondent No. 3 to lift the coal reject as per the contract entered into was to expire on 14-8-1997. Even after that date respondent No. 3 was permitted to lift coal reject during the subsequent period without inviting fresh tender. On these averments the petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing GEB not to grant, by private negotiations, any further extension of contract to respondent No. 3, who is a defaulter. The petitioner also prayed that :
“In the event of not inviting public tenders, to issue fresh order/contract to the petitioner be awarded as he is experienced, competent and qualified to accept and execute the contract at the rate of Rs. 701/- per MT plus taxes which is higher than the present rate of Rs. 595/- per MT. plus taxes that of the present contractor.”
3. The petitioner has approached this Court as Pro Bono Publico. He initiated this proceeding as a ‘Public Interest Litigation’. At the petitioner’s instance this Court passed an interim order on 12-9-1997 restraining respondent No. 3 from lifting coal from the premises of GEB. When the matter came up before the Bench, again on 15-9-1997, this Court passed the following order :
“Interim relief restraining the respondents from allowing the third respondent from lifting the Reject Coal. It is made clear that it is open to the respondent-Board to invite fresh tenders.”
By the above order respondent No. 3 is restrained from lifting the coal reject from 12-9-1997.
4. The Deputy Engineer, Wanakbori Thermal Power Station filed an affidavit dated 2-3-1998. That has been taken on record. Paragraph 3 of the said affidavit reads :
“I slate and submit that after the abovereferred petition being admitted, as slated hereinabove, (reference is to the present Special Civil Application) the Board has taken a decision to invite fresh tender for lifting of unlifted quantity of the rejected coal, which respondent No. 3 could not lift within the stipulated period. Since the petitioner had offered to lift the reject coal at
the rate of Rs. 701/-, the Board has decided to fix the base rale for the tender published Rs. 701/-per M. Tonne. As a resull of the said decision, respondent No. 3 will not be permitted to lift any quantity of unlifted reject coal and the same will be permitted to be lifted by the highest tender after the process of tender is over. The preparation of the tender advertisement is over and the same shall be published in the newspaper in a very near future.”
In view of the above averment the learned Counsel representing the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this Special Civil Application.
5. The petilioner moved this Special Civil Application as Public Interesl Litigation. One of the prayers made by it, which is quoted earlier in this judgmenl makes it abundantly clear that it was not championing the cause of the public, but was interested in getting the contract for itself. On coming to know of the notification issued by GEB inviting tenders for sale of coal reject, the petitioner got a tender form from GEB. for reasons best known to the petitioner, it did not fill up the tender form. Putting its tender, respondent No. 3 offered highest price and the contract was granted to it. Right from that day the petitioner was keeping a watch over the performance of the contract. The petitioner was not happy with GEB in rescheduling the quantity to be lifted per month. The period of contract entered into by respondent No. 3 expired on 14th August, 1997. Immedialely the petitioner wanted GEB to have retender and not to allow respondent No. 3 to carry on the contract on negotiated basis. When there happened to be some delay the petitioner approached this Court with this petition. It moved for an interim order preventing respondent No. 3 from lifting reject coal. Its attempt was only to get contract for itself. The prayer in the petition which was quoted earlier in this judgment abundantly shows that the petilioner was inleresled in getting the contract.
6. It was not a ‘Public Interesl Litigation’ which the petitioner was initialing, but was only ‘Private Interest Litigation’. The petitioner was certainly trying to use this Court as an instrument to wreck vengeance against respondent No. 3. The petitioner was using this petilion only lo gel an undue advantage for itself. In this regard the following observations made by the Apex Court in Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) 1 SCC 561 : (1993 AIR SCW 2678) appear to be apposite :
“….. the Court should hot be indirectly used
an an instrumentality by anyone to attain or obtain any beneficial achievement which one could not get through normal legal process and that if anyone approaches the Court with ulterior motive, designed to wrench some personal benefit by putting another within the clutches of law and using the Court as a device only for that end but not to get any legal remedy, then in such a situation the Court should heavily come upon such a person and see that the authority of the Court is not misused.”
7. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are clear in our mind that the petitioner could not have obtained an order restraining respondent No. 3 from lifting the reject coal had he not moved this petition as ‘Public Interest Litigation’. As observed earlier, it was the petitioner’s private interest that was being voiced in this Special Civil Application. Attempt of the petitioner to move this Court in Public Interest Litigation was with ulterior motive of getting benefit for it. So we direct the petitioner to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to Gujarat Electricity Board. This amount must be paid within one month from today. In case it is not paid, GEB will be at liberty to recover this amount in accordance with law.
8. The petition is dismissed with cost as stated above. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated.