Vineet Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D Sanjay, AAG 12 Mr. RR. Tiwary, AC to AAG 12 Mr. A.B. Pandey, AC to AAG 12. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)

3. 04-07-2013 We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The Public Interest Litigation filed by a Delhi based lawyer alleges that under the Jawaharlal Nehru Solar Mission, the guidelines provide that where the water level is available up to 10 meters depth, surface motor pump should be installed. If water depth was beyond the same, submersible pumps are to be used. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2013 (3) dt.04-07-2013 pumps are subsidized and partly financed by the Central Government and the State Government with the purchaser putting in the balance. The water table in the State of Bihar is high making it available within ten meters depth. Surface pumps are therefore required to be installed under the guidelines. Contrary to the same, the Bihar Renewable Energy Development Agency, (hereinafter called BREDA) functioning under the State government has issued tender for installation of submersible pumps only. The former are cost effective from all aspects. There is no justification for purchase of the latter at higher costs. It is however acknowledged that till date no purchase of the pumps had been made. It is next submitted that the earlier tender notice no. BREDA/SPV/02/2012-13 has been cancelled without valid justification and a fresh tender notice has been published without proper publicity/publication and the tender closed hurriedly on 19.5.2013 including technical and financial bid after postponing

30.04.2013 without proper publication. The difference between surface pump and submersible pump is about Rs. 75,000/-. The scheme is in crores. Directions may be issued in the meantime to restrain installation of submersible pump. Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2013 (3) dt.04-07-2013 The petitioner is stated to be a practicing lawyer at New Delhi. He is neither a resident of Bihar nor does he state that he has interest of any nature in the State of Bihar. The petitioner claims keen interest development and promotion of renewable energy, and has been extending his legal acumen in the filed and has filed this Public Interest Litigation because it involve public revenue, aggrieved also by the tender process. Not a single instance of the nature of activities under taken by him either in the State or elsewhere in the country has been cited by the petitioner in support of his claims. We are unable to appreciate how a lawyer can be aggrieved by a tender process as distinct from a person/participant in the same. According to the guidelines placed by petitioner, the entire scheme is guided by administrative instructions. Nothing has been shown to us from the scheme that where the water table is upto 10 meter depth or lesser, installation of submersible pump is prohibited. On the contrary we find that in note 10 of the guidelines for 2013-14 the word used is “preferred”. The guidelines recognize the permissibility of either at locations where the other pump could be installed. Interchangeability therefore permitted under guidelines, subject to ensuring requisite water upliftment and out put. Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2013 (3) dt.04-07-2013 Our attention was drawn technical specifications such as PV ARRAY, motor capacity, total dynamic head, module mounting structure and water output. But nothing has been pointed out to us from the same regarding the technical features of the two pumps, the difference between the same and preferability of the former. In any event we consider ourselves hardly competent to decide such technically complex issues. It is not the case of the petitioner that the water output shall be affected by installation of submersible pumps. The pumps are yet to be purchased and installed. At this stage it is entirely a pre-mature speculation that submersible pumps should not be allowed. It is not the case of the petitioner that no such exercise has been done by the respondents and that they have not even applied their minds to such issues. We would like to believe that the financial interest of the manufacturers of surface pumps shall certainly be affected if only submersible pumps are purchased and installed If an earlier tender notice has been cancelled and a fresh tender published, and any haste has been practiced in the same, there is no tenderer or intending tenderer complaining. We fail to understand how the lawyer is an „aggrieved‟ by alleged irregularities in publication of the tender etc. Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2013 (3) dt.04-07-2013 Further we not satisfied that the present is a bona fide Public Interest Litigation. If the petitioner is a lawyer practicing in Delhi, where condition are more, and the water table is lower, he has enough grounds available for espousing his public because in and around the area of Delhi itself. We have already noticed that not a single episode has been cited by him in support of his claim of keenness in the field. We also queried the counsel for the petitioner to address us on the issue with regard to the technical differences between a surface pump and submersible pump and the advantages or disadvantages of one or the other in the long term and whether under certain circumstances it may be advisable technically and financially to install a submersible pump where a surface pump may suffice. We were told that these are questions that the respondents can answer. (2010) 3 SCC 402 (state of Uttaranchal vs.Balwant Singh Chaufal‟s) it was observed as follows: 174 “A degree of precision and purity in presentation is a sine qua non for a petition filed by a member of the Bar under the label of public interest litigation. It is expected from a member of the Bar to at least carry out the basic research whether the point raised by him is res integra or not. The lawyer who files such a petition cannot plead ignorance”. In view of the guidelines enumerated in paragraph Patna High Court CWJC No.11054 of 2013 (3) dt.04-07-2013 181 of the judgment we do not think that this application fulfils any one of them. In (2005) 13 SCC 702 (Rohit Pandey Vs. Union of India), a Public Interest Litigation was filed by a lawyer which was held not to be bona fide and costs were fit to be imposed the Supreme Court refrained from doing so. We do not consider the present is a fit Public Interest Litigation calling for interference. The application is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) Prakash/Fahad. (Vikash Jain, J)