Bald assertions and allegations cannot be the basis of passing directions: High court of Punjab and Haryana
A single judge passed an order on the 2nd of may 2021 where he dismissed a mandamus under article 226 of the Indian Constitution read with section 482 Cr.P.C. “Saving of inherent powers of High Court” to be directed towards the official respondents to make the required enquiry regarding the matter and to register an FIR against the officials of the Municipal committer and as well as the contractor who was given work through tender and the consequential work being of low quality. Since the prayer was dismissed, the appellant challenged the order before this high court. This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 19th of July 2021 by Hon’ble justice Augustine George Mashih and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Verma in the case of Vikram Singh vs. the State of Haryana and others C.M. No. 1465-2021 &amp; LPA-592-2021. According to the counsel for the appellant based on the fact that the appellant is an RTI activist (Right to Information act), he sought certain information regarding the allegations made in the writ petition about the fraud made by the contractor in connivance with the officials of the municipal committee, Kalayat. Based on the information he gathered from the residents of that area that a low-grade material has been used to carry out the work which was assigned to the contractor. Allegations have been made that the contractor failed to fulfill the requisite criteria which were laid down for a tenderer to be eligible for consideration, however, forged and fabricated documents have been appended. The payment for the work has also been made to the contractor without following the norms in connivance with the officials of the municipal committee. Therefore, due to the above accusation, the appellant claims that the order passed by the single judge cannot sustain as he dismissed the writ petition, the appellant prayed before the court to direct the respondents to take necessary action in accordance with the law. The court after hearing the case stated that they have gone through the records and the order passed by the single judge but have not found any grounds for interfering with the impugned order however with regard to the eligibility of the contractor as well as the execution of the work in pursuance to the allotted tender the court held that the appellant made no objection to this matter. Now regarding the substandard quality of the products which has been used in the execution of the work which was allotted to the contractor through the tender after investigation no order of any authority or report of any laboratory shows the substandard use of material.
 on 21 07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH106 C.M. No. 1465 2021 & LPA 592 2021Date of decision:19.07.2021VIKRAM SINGH...APPELLANTVs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS...RESPONDENTSCORAM:HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHHON BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMAPresent:Mr. Yashdeep Nain Advocate for the appellant. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH J.C.M. No. 1465 2021Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 18 daysin filing the present appeal.Keeping in view the averments made in the application whichis supported by the affidavit of the applicant appellant the presentapplication is allowed. Delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal standscondoned. LPA 592 2021 This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant petitioner challenging the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learnedSingle Judge wherein writ petition preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. for issuance of amandamus directing the official respondents to enquire into the matter andthereafter to register an FIR against the erring officials of the MunicipalCommittee Kalayat as well as the contractor who was assigned the workthrough a tender as it is asserted that the issuance of the tender and the on 21 07 LPA 592 20212 consequential work which has been done being of low quality indicatesconnivance of the officials of the Municipal Committee Kalayat standsdismissed.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aRTI activist and on this basis he has sought information with regard to theallegations made in the writ petition on the basis of which he had assertedbefore the Court in the writ petition about the fraud having been played bythe contractor in connivance with the officials of the Municipal Committee Kalayat. His submission is that a low grade material has been used forcarrying out the work assigned to the contractor which was complained ofby the residents of the area. Allegations have also been made that thecontractor who was allotted the work did not fulfil the requisite criterialaid down for a tenderer to be eligible for consideration. Forged andfabricated documents have been appended relating to the experience of thecontractor. Payment has also been made to the contractor without followingthe norms in connivance with the officials of the Municipal Committee. He therefore contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judgedismissing the writ petition cannot sustain. Prayer has thus been made forsetting aside the said order and for remanding the case back to the learnedSingle Judge for fresh decision or for directing the respondents to take anappropriate action in accordance with law.We have considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through therecords of the case as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge butdo not find any ground for interfering with the said impugned order.It is not in dispute that the matter with regard to the eligibility on 21 07 LPA 592 20213 of the contractor who had been allotted the contract as well as the executionof the work in pursuance to the allotted tender would be a purelycontractual obligation and governed by the terms and conditions thereof.The appellant has no connection or concern with the same as at the timewhen the work was allotted to the contractor no objection whatsoever wasraised by the appellant. Now what has been sought to be projected is thesubstandard quality of the products which have been used in execution ofthe work which was allotted. No order of any competent authority or reportof any laboratory has been placed on record to show the substandard use ofmaterial.As regards the allegations of fraud and connivance of theofficials of the Municipal Committee is concerned again there is noevidence to that effect. In the absence of these aspects interference by thisCourt while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction is uncalled for.Bald assertions and allegations cannot be made the basis for passingdirections which may be prayed for by a person who has approached thisCourt.In view of the above the present appeal being devoid of meritstands dismissed.(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE JUDGEJuly 19 2021pjWhether speaking reasoned:Yes NoWhether Reportable:Yes No 