1. Heard.
2. The petition has been preferred by petitioner - Sajag Upbhokta Shakti Sangthan Samiti praying for relief to quash the administrative instruction /circular No. CO/OS/P/ PSP/001/2010/2 dated 30-9-2010 and Circular No. ZD/1158/ASP/2010 dated 1-9-2010 issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter be referred as "LIC") in the matter of meal vouchers or any order if any in this regard, in public interest. Prayer has also been made to quash the service agreement dated 30-9-2010 entered into by LIC with respondent No. 5 or any order deemed fit in this regard if any in the interest of justice and in public interest. It has been further prayed that respondent-LIC be directed to invite tender in the matter of its Meal Vouchers scheme in accordance with the CVC guidelines and the directions given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of
3. Petitioner has given credentials in para 2 of the petition that petitioner is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. Petitioner society is engaged in various social and community welfare initiatives and programmes etc. as specified in para 2(i) of the petition. Petition has been filed in the public interest alleging that LIC is spending public money to the tune of Rs. 350/- crores out of sheer favouritism; LIC is a Public Sector Undertaking constituted and owned by the Government of India and it has branches all over India. LIC has decided to introduce and implement the scheme of Meal Vouchers and provide benefit to employees and/or its associates all across the country. The meal vouchers are food coupons given by the organizations to its employees, in addition to their basic salary. These meal vouchers are issued to employees to avail food and certain other benefits like groceries etc. It is also submitted by the petitioner that it is a popular concept which has been used extensively by numerous organizations world over including India. However, petitioner is aggrieved by the manner and mode in which LIC has undertaken to implement the meal voucher scheme all across India. LIC will now spend Rs. 336 crores of taxpayers'' money nationwide on food coupons. Petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act to the LIC and CVC to obtain information contained therein, which demonstrated the rates at which M/s. Sodexo SVC India Pvt. has been allowed by LIC to supply Meal Vouchers and details of persons/organizations/entities /companies that have participated or that have been considered or who has approached LIC in the matter of supply of Meal Vouchers prior to allowing M/s. Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. to supply food coupons to LIC and in this manner the LIC has not followed the guidelines issued by the CVC from time to time in respect of maintaining fairness and transparency in the process of procurement. The action is in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of CVC directives. LIC has not given equal opportunity to all service providers in the field. Apex Court in Nagar Nigam, Meerut (supra) has laid down that there should be healthy competition by inviting tenders in the newspapers. LIC has not followed the instructions of the CVC. They are also required to comply with the process of law. Shortlisting the service provider for supply of Meal Vouchers to LIC smacks of mala fide collusion. LIC being an instrumentality of the State, has not acted in a fair manner in implementing the scheme of Meal Vouchers and has acted arbitrarily.
4. In the reply to the writ petition filed by the LIC of India, LIC has taken preliminary objection that RTI application has been filed by Shri Nazib A. Khan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner-Society whereas, writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-society in an independent capacity. Petitioner has approached later on to file the present frivolous and vexatious litigation with ulterior motives. News has been published in the State of Maharashtra but the litigation has been filed in the State of Rajasthan, which clearly shows ulterior motives behind the present public interest litigation. LIC is not spending a single penny on service charges to the service providers hence, question of misusing of public money does not arise. Petitioner-society has no locus standi in the matter as no public interest at large is involved in the public interest litigation. Petitioner be asked to deposit Rs. 10/- lacs by way of security.
5. It is contended in the reply that the food voucher/meal coupon scheme is not new to the India. It is prevailing all world over as admitted by the petitioner. LIC of India has decided to introduce the scheme of food vouchers as a part of good human resources practice which is so necessary in the competitive environment. Board of LIC in its meeting held on 5-5-2010 has accorded approval to the Scheme of Providing Food Coupons to Officers and Employees as given in the board note.
6. It is further contended in the reply by the LIC that the scheme of meal vouchers comes under the purview of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (hereinafter be referred as the "Act of 2007"). This is an Act to provide for regulation and supervision of payment system in India and to designate the Reserve Bank of India the authority for that purpose and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Committee authorized in this regard, after examining Certificate of Authorization issued by the Reserve Bank of India u/s 7 of the Act of 2007 for setting up an Operating Payment System in India on 30-6-2010 wherein only two companies were authorized by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of prepaid payment instruments for issuance of meal vouchers; one was Accor Services Pvt. Ltd. (at item No. 21) and another was Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. (at item No.33). Other than these two companies, no other company is mentioned and authorized in the document (Ann. R/1) issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Since only two service providers were available for the supply of meal vouchers, both were asked to present their cases before the committee duly constituted by the competent authority to assess and short-list the service provider in order to run the scheme involving 1,15,000 approximately numbers of employees with monthly outgo of Rs. 18 crores approximately and as per the guidelines of RBI to maintain Escrow Account, it is important for the service provider with a better financial strength rather than going for any other provider. The service provider was selected on the basis of financial strength, reach market share etc. M/ s. Sodexo SVC India (P) Ltd., respondent No.5 has a 79% market share in India and the same is leader in food voucher service industry, posted profit of Rs. 25.42 crores and has net worth of Rs. 20.97 crores whereas, the other vendor had profit of Rs. 3.5 crores only and has incurred accumulated losses of Rs. 19.48 crores in the year 2008.09.
7. After providing due opportunity to both the service providers, the committee shortlisted the service provider. The meal vouchers are supplied on the face value and no service charges and postal charges are levied by the service provider. Hence, there is no extra outgo to the Corporation and thus the Corporation has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007. No cause of action arises for the petitioner to file the public interest litigation in such a matter. Application has not been filed by the petitioner in its independent capacity under the RTI Act. It has been filed by Shri Nazib A. Khan, Advocate in his personal capacity. There is no violation of CVC guidelines and the action has been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007. It is not necessary for the RBI to satisfy all the service providers and the action has been taken under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act of 2007.
8. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is, submitted that the newspaper cuttings were the primary source of information regarding the meal voucher scheme of respondent No. 1. RTI application was submitted by the petitioner society through its Advocate Shri Najib Anwar Khan. The news regarding LIC''s meal voucher scheme was published not only in the State of Maharashtra but also in other States. All other public sector undertaking have invited tenders for supply of the meal vouchers. The averments made that only two companies have been authorized in respect of prepaid payment instruments and the meal voucher scheme is not advertised in the manner stated. Other companies are also providing meal cards. Other pleadings in the writ petition have been reiterated.
9. Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the process of inviting tenders has not been followed, which was necessary and is being adopted by other public sector undertakings. Other service providers are providing meal vouchers under the recognized system by the RBI and under the Act of 2007. Petitioner being a company registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act has filed the petition in the public interest so as to save the huge money being spent by LIC in the meal scheme without taking proper steps in grant of contract to respondent No.5 -M/s. Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. The list filed along with return being issued u/s 7 is not signed by any authorized person of RBI. Certificate of authorization filed by respondent LIC cannot be sustained.
10. Shri R. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that u/s 5 of the Act of 2007, it is necessary for any person desirous of commencing or carrying on a payment system to apply to the Reserve Bank for an authorization under this Act. An application has to be filed in such form and in such manner and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. u/s 6 of the Act of 2007, the RBI, after enquiries and satisfying that the application is complete in all respects and that it conforms to the provisions of the Act of 2007, may issue or refuse authorization for operating the payment system under the Act of 2007. As per Section 7, there are only two authorized companies i.e. Accor Services Pvt. Ltd. (at item No.21) and another M/s. Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. (at item No.33) for issuance of meal vouchers. Other than these two companies, no other company is mentioned and authorized in the document (R/1) issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Since only two service providers were available for the supply of meal vouchers, both the service providers were asked to present their cases before the committee duly constituted by the competent authority to assess and short list the service provider in order to run the scheme involving 1,15,000 approximately numbers of employees with monthly outgo of Rs. 18 crores approximately and as per the provision of RBI to maintain Escrow Account, it is important for the service provider with a better financial strength rather than going for any other provider. The service provider was selected on the basis of financial strength, reach market share etc. Cases of both service providers were considered by the LIC and the contract was decided to be given to respondent No,.5 -M/s. Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. The action has been taken in accordance with Sections 5 and 7 and the provisions have to be followed w.e.f. 30-6-2010. It was not necessary to float the tenders in the circumstances. The other company, which was not represented, has not filed a petition. This petition has been filed flagrantly under the garb of public interest litigation to cater the own interest and cannot be termed in the public interest at all. The petition has not been filed under the provisions of the Act of 2007. Thus, the exemplary cost be imposed upon petitioner for filing this frivolous litigation before this Court.
11. It is apparent that the issue of public imporatance is not involved in the present case. The news was published not only in the State of Maharashtra but in other States. Petitioner did not file the application in its own name but Shri Nazib A. Khan, Advocate, filed the same, writ petition has been filed by the petitioner society in an independent capacity.
12. The provisions of the Act of 2007 are apparent. The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 is an Act to provide for the regulation and supervision of payment systems in India and to designate the Reserve Bank of India as the authority for that purpose and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto. RBI is a designated authority for regularizing and supervising the payment systems in India under the Act of 2007 as provided in Section 3(1) thereof. Section 3 is quoted below :--
3. (1) The Reserve Bank shall be the designated authority for the regulation and supervision of payment systems under this Act.
(2) The Reserve Bank may, for the purpose of exercising the powers and performing the functions and discharging the duties conferred on it by or under this Act, by regulation, constitute a committee of its Central Board to be known as the Board for Regulation and Supervision of Payment and Settlement Systems.
(3) The Board constituted under sub section (2) shall consist of the following members, namely :--
(a) Governor, Reserve Bank, who shall be the Chairperson of the Board;
(b) Deputy Governors, Reserve Bank, out of whom the Deputy Governor who is in charge of the Payment and Settlement Systems, shall be the Vice-Chairperson of the Board;
(c) Not exceeding three Directors from the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India to be nominated by the Governor, Reserve Bank.
(4) The powers and functions of the Board constituted under sub-section (2), the time and venue of its meetings, the procedure to be followed in such meetings, (including the quorum at such meetings) and other matters incidental thereto shall be such as may be prescribed.
(5) The Board for Regulation and Supervision of Payment and Settlement Systems constituted under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 shall be deemed to be the Board constituted under this section and continue accordingly until the Board is reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall be governed by the rules and regulations made under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
It is appearent from Section 3 that Reserve Bank is a designated authority for constitution of a committee of its Central Board to be known as the Board for Regulation and Supervision of Payment and Settlement Systems. Constitution of the Board has been provided in Section 3(3) of the Act of 2007. Payment system cannot be operated without authorization as provided in Section 4 of the Act of 2007. Section 4 deals with the authorization that no person as per Section 4(1) other than the Reserve Bank, shall commence or operate a payment system except in accordance with an authorization issued by the Reserve Bank under the provisions of this Act. Section 5(1) deals with application for authorization. Section 5 of the Act of 2007 is quoted below :--
5(1) Any person desirous of commencing or carrying on a payment system may apply to the Reserve Bank for an authorization under this Act.
(2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be made in such form and in such manner and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
13. Section 6 deals with inquiry by the Reserve Bank u/s 5 of the Act of 2007. Issue of authorization is provided u/s 7. Authorization (R/1) was issued by the Reserve Bank of India on the basis of returns filed and only two entities i.e. one Accor Services Pvt. Ltd. (at item No.21) and another Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. (at item No.33) have been authorized for the payment system. Since only two service providers were available for the supply of meal vouchers, LIC considered both of them and they have been asked to present their cases before the committee duly constituted by the competent authority to assess and short list the service provider in order to run the scheme involving 1,15,000 approximately numbers of employees with monthly outgo Rs. 18 crores approximately and as per provision of RBI to maintain Escrow Account, it is important too for the service provider with a better financial strength rather than going for any other provider. The service provider was selected on the basis of financial strength, reach market share etc. M/ s. Sodexo SVC India (P) Ltd., respondent No. 5 has a 79% market share in India and the same is leader in food voucher service industry, posted profit of Rs. 25.42 crores and has net worth of Rs. 20.97 crores whereas the other vendor had profit of Rs. 3.5 crores only and has incurred accumulated losses of Rs. 19.48 crores in the year 2008-09. Other than these two companies, no other company is mentioned and authorized in the document (R/1) issued by the Reserve Bank of India; the certificate of authorization issued u/s 7 of the Act of 2007. There was thus absolutely no reason to doubt the correctness of the certificate, which has been filed along with return. In the return, its character has not been disputed. Only submission raised is that there may be some other service provider, but no other such provision has been specified under the Act of 2007. The action has been taken in accordance with Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act of 2007 for setting up an Operating Payment System in India w.e.f. 30-6-2010. Case of both the service providers, which are authorized u/s 7 of the Act of 2007 was considered as mentioned in the return. Thus, decision taken by the LIC was fully in accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 2007. It is not shown that any other entities have been authorized by RBI with respect to payment system of meal vouchers and gift vouchers etc. The matter has been actively considered by respondents in accordance with law and directives of RBI.
14. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that there are other service providers in the country such as Axis Bank, ATW India, ICICI Bank, City Bank, HDFC Bank and My Bonus Card Tech (India) Pvt. Ltd. are also in the field but, they are not shown to be mentioned in notification issued by RBI under the Act of 2007.
15. In such a matter, we are of the considered opinion that in case any other service provider in the field was having any grievance, he could have come to this Court and not the petitioner by way of filing this public interest litigation. We are not satisfied that the petition has been filed to cater the public interest. Material facts have been suppressed. Even provisions of the Act of 2007 have not been referred to in the petition whereas, decision was taken by RBI on the basis of the said Act and the Certificate of Authorization has been issued u/s 7 of the Act of 2007. Neither the authorization nor any of the provisions of the Act of 2007 have been questioned. We are not at all impressed by the submissions raised by Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that other service providers are providing service to many other public sector undertakings. Counsel was unable to show whether contract was granted after enforcement of the Act of 2007. M/s. Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. respondent No.5 is providing service to the LIC with rigor of provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 2007 implemented w. e. f. 30-6-2010 under the guidelines of RBI. It is also apparent that news were published in the newspapers only in the State of Maharashtra regarding the meal voucher scheme of respondent No. 1. RTI application was submitted by Shri Najib Anwar Khan Advocate in his own name and not on behalf of the petitioner for obtaining information. Thus, we are also not satisfied about the bonafide of the petitioner, as petition has been filed particularly when publication of the newspaper has taken place in Maharashtra. No document showing publication of the said news in the Rajasthan has been placed on record. Petitioner society area of operation is Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. Thus, it appears that petition has been filed only to cater someone else''s interest in the matter. The other competitor in fray has not filed any petition. Petitioner in such a contractual matter cannot be said aggrieved person. No element of public injury is involved.
16. Thus, we find petition to be fully frivolous, which could not be said to be filed so as to subserve the public interest at all. In
