WP(PIL)/2/2022 of SUSHIL RAI Vs STATE OF SIKKIM AND ORS. on 13 December 2022

Conclusion

WP (PIL) No.02/2022

SUSHIL RAI PETITIONER (S)

VERSUS

STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS. RESPONDENT (S)

For Petitioner : Mr. Thupden Youngda, Advocate with Mr. Purab Wangdi, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Addl. Advocate General with Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Asst. Govt. Advocate.

Date: 13/12/2022

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

…

JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)

This petition is sought to be moved as a Public Interest Litigation by one Sushil Rai. The petition was affirmed and filed on 02[nd] November, 2022. The issue of “public interest” sought to be brought to the notice of this Court is with regard to the Government of Sikkim’s decision to award supply of medicines and consumables for the year 2021 to only five vendors, excluding others. The contentious memo which the writ petitioner seeks to refer to, in this regard, is the memo dated 22[nd] June, 2020.

When we took up this matter on 24[th] November, 2022 — while adjourning the matter till today — we had requested the learned Additional Advocate General to take instructions from his clients in the meanwhile.

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Advocate General submits, on instructions, that Sushil Rai, the writ petitioner is just a proxy. In fact, the wife of the learned advocate for the petitioner — who is appearing in this matter — is a vendor/supplier of medicines jk/sl/ami WP (PIL) No.02/2022

Sushil Rai Vs State of Sikkim & Ors.

who did not get a favourable award from the Government of Sikkim — as will appear from the contentious memo dated 22[nd] June, 2020 — which has prompted filing of the instant writ petition in the name of Sushil Rai.

At this juncture, we sought a response from the learned advocate for the petitioner as to whether he would like to press forward with the matter or seek leave of Court to withdraw the instant writ petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner prayed for a couple of minutes’ time in order to take instructions. He now submits, on instructions, that his client does not desire to prosecute the matter and seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.

While we grant the writ petitioner leave to withdraw the writ petition and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, we would like to make an observation that time has come to put a full stop to misuse of the public interest jurisdiction of High Courts in the manner in which it was sought to be misused in the present case.

(Meenakshi Madan Rai) Judge

(Biswanath Somadder)

Chief Justice