Dismissed

Vijay Kumar Prasad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Thru Shashi Shanker, Cmd-Ongc and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2019WP/3773/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Bombay Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by an ONGC employee alleging harassment, conspiracy, and victimisation. The Court held it cannot examine factual allegations like stalking or poisoning in a writ; found no infringed fundamental right or arbitrariness; and rejected the RTI-related challenge as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

null

Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs Oil and Natural… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 OF 2019

¶4

Vijay Kumar Prasad

¶5

Aged 56 years, Occ. Service in ONGC, 32,
Bluebell, Godrej Sky Garden, Takka
Village, Panvel – 410 206; Mobile
9969224277, Te.: 022-2721 1039, Email Id:
[email protected]; Working at ONGC
Nhava Supply Base, Post Nhava, Taluka
Panvel, District Raigad – 410 206

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

~ versus ~

¶8

1.Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd
through Shahi Shanker, CMD
ONGC, PDDU Urja Bhavan, 5-A,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Basant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110 070

¶9

2.Dinesh Kumar Sarraf
Ex CMD-ONGC, Age 61, B-155,
Greater Kailash – 1, New Delhi –
1100048
Email Id.: [email protected]
Mob.: 09868282036

¶10

3.Dr Alka Mittal,
Director (HR)-ONGC, PDDU Urga
Bhavan, 5-A Nelson Mandela Marg,
Basant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070

¶11

4. Desh Deepak Misra, Ex-director (HR)-ONCG, Age 60, through Dr Alka Mittal, Director

¶12

Page 1 of 14
11th October 2019

¶13

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶14

(HR)-ONGC, PDDU Urja Bhavan,
5-A, Nelson Mandela Marg, Basant
Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070

¶15

5.Sarbada Gopinath,
ED-Head Regional Ofce (HRO),
Age 59, Q1, 4th foor, NBP Green
Heights, ONGC, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Mumbai 400 051

¶16

6.Tauqir Hussain,
Ex-ED-HRO ONGC, 66 years,
42-B, Ballupur Road, Near Shristi
Departmental Store, Dehradun 248
001, M 09410390786

¶17

7.Biswanath De
Ex-GGM(M), IMPETUS, through
Shri Rajeev Kumar Sharma, GGM
(HR), Head Establishment, I/C
Separated Employees Cell, NBP
Green Heights, ONGC, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051

¶18

8.Sanjay Agarwal,
Ex-GM (HR), 61 years, through Shri
Rajeev Kumar Sharma, GGM (HR),
Head Establishment, I/C Separated
Employees Cell, NBP Green
Heights, ONGC, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Mumbai 400 051

¶19

9.Nishith Tikkha-DGM
(HR),
53 years approx, Q1/B1, 3rd Floor,
NBP Green Heights, ONGC,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai
400 051
10.Dr Mina Biswal,
Age 60 years, Retired ONGC

¶20

Page 2 of 14
11th October 2019

¶21

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶22

Doctor, D/o Late R.C. Giri,
Tulsipur, TV road, Distt. Katak,
Orissa 753008

¶23

11. Ashok Kumar Agarwal GM (HR)-CPIO, Age 55 years, Q1/F3, NBP Green Heights, ONGC, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051

¶24

12.Nodal Central Public
Information Officer,
Oil & Natural Corporation Ltd,
DDU Bhawan, 5, Nelson Mandela
Marg, Vasank Kunj, New Delhi
110070
13.Union of India
Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve
Road, Churchgate, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 020
14.Sunita Mishra
Age 55 years Approx, Housewife, 21,
Bluebell, Godrej Sky Garden, Takka
Village, Panvel 410 206
15.Anita Mishra
Age 50 years Approx, Teacher, 24,
Bluebell, Godrej Sky Garden, Takka
Village, Panvel 410 206

¶25

16.Deepak Mishra
Age 52 years Approx, Service in a
private Company, 24, Bluebell,
Godrej Sky Garden, Takka Village,
Panvel 410 206…Respondents

¶26

Page 3 of 14
11th October 2019

¶27

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶28

APPEARANCES

¶29

PETITIONERINPERSONMR VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD
FOR RESPONDENTNO. 1MR GIRISH JAWAHAR PARYANI

¶30

CORAM:S.C. Dharmadhikari &
G.S. Patel, JJ.

¶31

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:3rd October 2019
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:11th October 2019
:
JUDGMENT (Per GS Patel, J)

¶32

1.Heard. Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent
taken up for hearing and fnal disposal.

¶33

2.The Petitioner appears in person. He is even now an
employee of the 1st Respondent, the Oil And Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd (“ONGC”). At the time of the petition he was
Chief Engineer (Production) at the Nhava Supply Base, ONGC,
Nhava. Respondents Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 are all employed with
ONGC. The 13th Respondent is the Union of India. Respondents
Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are persons who held positions of various
kinds with ONGC. Respondents Nos. 14 to 16 are individuals.

¶34

3.The petition is ostensibly fled under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for very many reliefs. Not all lie within the
ambit of Article 226. The principal relief is for the issue of a
mandamus to the Respondents to reply with reasons to the
Petitioner in respect of his complaint listed at Exhibit “V”. There is

¶35

Page 4 of 14
11th October 2019

¶36

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶37

also a challenge to an order dated 24th January 2018 passed by the
Central Information Commission, New Delhi (“CIC”) in a Second
Appeal, and for a direction to ONGC in Mumbai and its nodal
Public Information Ofcer or PIO to supply certain information
sought by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act under
an application dated 20th April 2016.

¶38

4.We have heard Mr Vijay Kumar Prasad. We have carefully
considered the petition with all its annexures, the afdavit in reply
fled by one AJ Narsaiyaa, the Chief Manager (Human Resources)
of ONGC, the lengthy afdavit in rejoinder, and the detailed written
submissions Mr Prasad tendered.

¶39

5.Mr Prasad works with the ONGC as a Chief Engineer
(Production). He has been in employment for over 33 years and has
received regular promotions.

¶40

6.From paragraph 4 of the petition onwards, there are a series
of allegations made against various ofcers of ONGC. The frst
allegation is that a serving ofcer demanded on 3rd September 2004
that the Petitioner should marry the ofceres daughter or face dire
consequences. The Petitioner then says that since he could not and
did not accede to this, there began a systematic campaign of
harassment and intimidation. He was threatened with dismissal and
disciplinary action. It is alleged that on 6th April 2006 the Petitioner
was issued a memorandum alleging serious misconduct which was
similar to earlier warning letters. The Petitioner submitted a
representation dated 19th June 2006 protesting against what he

¶41

Page 5 of 14
11th October 2019

¶42

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶43

perceived to be victimisation. He also approached the Honeble
Union Minister of State (Petroleum and Natural Gases) on 20th July
2006 and later approached the Union Cabinet Minister. The
Petitioner received neither reply nor redress. The Petitioner then
says that ONGC then took up what the Petitioner describes as an
undercover operation from October 2006 to ruin his personal life.

¶44

7.We have made it clear to Mr Prasad that within the limited
confnes of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we cannot
possibly examine these allegations. Those limitations are not relaxed
merely because a party chooses to appear pro se, nor does the use of
extreme language or terminology such as “evil deeds”, “torture” etc
allow us to expand our writ jurisdiction beyond well-established
limits. What emerges from paragraph 9 is that the Petitioner
continues to perceive himself as being victimised. These allegations
may or may not furnish Mr Prasad a cause of action in a civil
proceeding; we say nothing on that score. He is at liberty to take
those steps, if available, and subject to all defences including
limitation. We are, however, clear that we cannot examine them in a
writ petition.

¶45

8.We gather from the averments in paragraph 10 of the petition
that the Petitioner was something of a whistle-blower. He
complained inter alia about alleged clandestine spending by ONGC.
Then there is a long narration in paragraph 10 about residential
neighbours allegedly spying on the Petitioner, illegally hacking his
internet connection and computer, and running illicit wire-taps on
his cell phones. These are just allegation, sans particulars and

¶46

Page 6 of 14
11th October 2019

¶47

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶48

certainly without proof. These allegations, too, cannot be examined
in writ jurisdiction.

¶49

9.Paragraph 12 contains an allegation that an ofcer of ONGC
attempted to poison and murder the Petitioner. Again, this cannot
be the subject matter of a civil writ petition.

¶50

10.The Petitioneres meandering narrative of these and similar
facts of his persecution — or, at any rate, his perceived persecution
— does not persuade us that we can fashion any sort of relief on
these grounds.

¶51

11. For our present purposes what matters is that the Petitioner
made an application on 20th April 2016 under the Right to
Information Act 2005 seeking information on as many as 71 queries.

¶52

12.On 21st June 2016 the Petitioner was given an abridged or
abbreviated report in response to the Petitioneres repeated
complaints. The petition then avers that the Petitioner did not
received an adequate response to his RTI queries. He fled a First
Appeal. A short while later on 12th July 2016, the Petitioner
received some limited information but much of what he sought was
denied to him claiming an exemption. The Respondents replied to
his First Appeal but without adequate reasons. The Appellate
Authority on 21st July 2016 confrmed the order of the Authority
below.

¶53

Page 7 of 14
11th October 2019

¶54

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶55

13.It seems that by this time the Petitioner was using ONGCes
SAP business portal to transmit his representation. He received an
advisory dated 14th July 2016 not to do so. The Petitioner confrms
that he is not doing that and we accept this.

¶56

14.The Petitioner ultimately fled a Second Appeal before the
Central Information Commission. The submission is that the
response to this was vague.

¶57

15.Even a cursory reading of paragraphs 2 to 37 of the petition is
enough to show that it is impossible to grant or even mould any
particular relief based on averments made in this chaotic and
unfocussed fashion. The whole of the petition is an attempt to
portray the Petitioner as a targeted victim of a vast conspiracy
involving many dozens of people, spread across large spans of time
and even covering a wide geographical distribution. At every turn,
all that the Petitioner sees is harassment and persecution. There are
fles on allegations about the Petitioner being victimised, harassed,
having his privacy invaded, being the victim of an undercover sting
operation, being forced into a relationship with someone else and so
on. Throughout there is nothing in the form of tangible material, but
only a piling up of correspondence and allegations. It is impossible
from these averments to discern a legally enforceable right, let alone
a fundamental right, that can be invoked by the Petitioner.

¶58

16.The specifc challenge in the petition is to a document at
Exhibit “HHHH” and its annexures. The exhibit is a letter of 13th
February 2018 from the General Manager (HR) and CPIO of

¶59

Page 8 of 14
11th October 2019

¶60

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶61

ONGC to the Petitioner. It encloses some documents and the
relevant one is from pages 349 to 358. The document is heavily
redacted. It says that a committee of four ofcers was set up by the
ONGC Human Resources Ofce to look into the Petitioneres case.
The 10th Respondent, Dr Mina Biswal, was a member of this
committee. The other persons on this committee included
Respondents Nos. 8 and 9. This report from pages 349 to 354 noted
the brief facts and that for the past three years the Petitioner had
been alleging that he was personally targeted and troubled in
Mumbai, at his residence in Panvel and was attempted to be
subjected to lead poisoning at Bengal Chemical Bhavan. Up to that
time he had sent as many as 192 letters to various senior ofcers of
ONGC. The report noted some corrective measures including
noting that despite telephonic request, the Petitioner did not meet
the regional ofce head in Mumbai to ascertain basic facts but
instead addressed even more correspondence. Thereafter, by virtue
of a letter dated 17th November 2015, an internal committee of
ofcers was constituted and it concluded that all the complaints
made by the Petitioner pertained to ofcers, persons or places that
did not relate to what is called the IOGPT (Institute of Oil & Gas
Production Technology) of the ONGC. The IOGPT was established
in 1984 with assistance of the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to meet
the production and processing-related technological requirements of
oil and gas felds and processing plants. It is situated at the
Technology Park in Panvel. The IOGPT is one of ONGCes many
such research and development facilities.

¶62

Page 9 of 14
11th October 2019

¶63

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶64

17.It was found that the Petitioneres complaints all pertained to a
period prior to his joining or secondment to IOGPT. Further, as the
IOGPT is in Panvel, the enquiry committee felt this was really a
matter to be dealt with by the regional ofce. The committee also
noted that there was nothing to indicate that there had been any
trouble at Bengal Chemical Bhavan. The Petitioner was staying in a
private residence at Panvel which was not in the control of ONGC,
and therefore the allegations against neighbours were not such as
could be addressed by any internal mechanism or protocol of the
ONGC.

¶65

18.After going through several written, oral and other received
information from the Petitioner, his colleagues, his reporting ofcer,
neighbours, co-residents, medical reports and available records, the
four-member committee submitted its report on 21st January 2016.
The salient points of this recommendation are as follows (quoted
from the report):

¶66

(a)Considering Shri Prasades alleged life threatening
accusation, the committee advised Shri Prasad that if he is
convinced that there is threat to his life, he should
approach the local police station immediately and he
should stop sending SAP mails.

¶67

(b)The committee noted that Shri Prasad is well
informed on RTI, committeees jurisdiction and his
requirements.

¶68

(c)The committee interacted with senior executives
residing in the same complex as Shri Prasad and they
expressed that they are neither aware of any such
incident in the society during that period nor any other
personalized troubling to him in the society premises.

¶69

Page 10 of 14
11th October 2019

¶70

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶71

(d)The committee also enquired about threatening
and personalized commenting incidents from the
secretary of Shri Prasad’s Housing society, who stated
that no such event happened in the society as per the
records.

¶72

(e)As regards Shri Prasad’s allegation related to
spying, lead poisoning, tracking his moments etc. at
Bengal Chemical Bhavan, are concerned, Shri Prasad’s
colleagues of IMPETUS shared that Shri Prasad’s
allegations are truly baseless, no such event has taken
place nor it is possible to take place and the incidents
mentioned are not true and are imaginary.

¶73

(f)The medical report of Shri Prasad from SRL
Diagnostics dt. 6th June 2015 was perused by the
committee and was observed that his lead levels are within
normal range.

¶74

(g)As per medical report dt. 26th November 2015
conduced by Dr Megha Deshpande, Consulting
Physician, Shri Prasad is normal physically though his
behaviour shows anxiety and may require thorough
investigation. Shri Prasad was advised for the same.
However, Shri Prasad did not pay heed to the advice.
Since the lead levels in the report are indicated normal,
the committee opined that the alleged lead poisonings
may not have taken place at all.

¶75

(h)Despite giving fair opportunity to Shri Prasad by the
committee, he instead of helping the committee to fnd
the root cause of his grievances and redressal thereof,
has insisted only on pursuing some imaginary
documents. Shri Prasad being a very senior and mature
ofcer could have utilized this opportunity to get the issues
if any addressed.

¶76

Page 11 of 14
11th October 2019

¶77

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶78

(i)The committee from his communications observed
that Shri Prasad initially stated that RO Vigilance was
behind the ill doings, and then started accusing RO, HR
and GM IMPETUS and is now insisting on seeing
certain imaginary documents.

¶79

(j)The committee from all its logical deductions tend to
agree with the available information from people with
whom it has interacted that such an event is not possible
to happen in hired ofce at BCB as well as in his
residential society.

¶80

(k)Due to adamant behaviour of Shri Prasad, the
committee failed to address his grievances if any.

¶81

(Emphasis added)

¶82

19.We have highlighted and emphasized some portions of this,
because even today in this writ petition, the Petitioner persists in
repeating the same allegations. As a matter of administrative law and
standards of judicial review of administrative action, we can fnd no
reason to interfere. The decision-making process cannot be faulted.
The Petitioner was given multiple opportunities for redressal. His
remedies, if any, do not lie before us in a writ petition.

¶83

20.The committee also observed as follows:

¶84

(a)Shri V.K. Prasad, CE (P) is not looking for
redressal of his grievances. He has been changing his
stand time and again without focusing on the issue
initially raised by him in his SAP mail PARA II.

¶85

(b)It is difcult to establish that he was troubled at
BCB ofce during his IMPETUS tenure; however, it is

¶86

Page 12 of 14
11th October 2019

¶87

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶88

extremely unlikely that these incidents could ever have
taken place.

¶89

(c)Incidents mentioned by Shri V.K. Prasad, CE (P)
at his residence vide mail dated 8th October 2015 appear
to be imaginary.

¶90

(d)The allegation of his lead poisoning at Bengal
Chemical Bhavan, Mumbai or at IOGPT Panvel appears
to have not taken place at all.

¶91

(e)Misuse of corporate resources by Shri Prasad i.e.
instead of following laid down policy on grievance
management of the company choose to use SAP mails on
daily basis. SAP happens to be business platform of the
company.

¶92

(Emphasis added)

¶93

21.The committee therefore, concluded that the allegations
made by the Petitioner were found to be false and imaginary and that
he should be advised to follow the established procedures but not
misuse the SAP business portal. Page 354 contained material that is
heavily redacted. Then at page 355 is a document signed by one S
Gopinath which is also redacted but it seems to indicate that ONGC
has taken the view that his business portal was being misused.
Although there is some other material where questions were raised
about the Petitioneres mental health, we do not think it is necessary
to go into this further.

¶94

22.So far as our remit is concerned, this much is clear: frst, we
are unable to discern any legal right or fundamental right that can be
said to have been infringed warranting our interference under

¶95

Page 13 of 14
11th October 2019

¶96

VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V ONGC LTD & ORS
ASWP3773-19-J.DOC

¶97

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Second, there is no case
made out for interference as a matter of judicial review. There is no
arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness that would demand
our intervention. Third, there are very serious disputed questions of
fact. The allegations of individual mala fdes, wrongdoing,
criminality, culpability in tort and otherwise, and so on are all
matters that require evidence and cannot be examined in a writ
petition. The Petitioner must prove the correctness of what he says
in a manner known to law. Just because he is an individual there can
be no exception made to this rule. His version will have to be tested
by cross-examination once he enters the witness box and gives
appropriate evidence in support of a civil suit, assuming that he can
make out an actionable civil cause. Fourth, we are not prepared to
hold that just because an RTI query has been raised with 71 queries
therefore this gives the Petitioner a cause of action or entitles him to
an immediate remedy. It is undoubtedly true that the Petitioner did
receive some responses but for the others exemption was claimed.

¶98

23.It is difcult in these circumstances to hold that the Petitioner
has made out a sufcient case warranting our interference. The
Petitioner keeps making the same allegations over and over again,
but refuses to cooperate or furnish proof. We fnd no merit in the
petition. It is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶99

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

¶100

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶101

Page 14 of 14
11th October 2019

Vijay Kumar Prasad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Thru Shashi Shanker, Cmd-Ongc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Prasad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Thru Shashi Shanker, Cmd-Ongc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Tiwari Vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Sra and 4 Ors.

Ahmed Mohd. Mukri Shaikh (Deceased) through Ismail Shaikh Mohd Mukri Vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Sra and 4 Others

Sanjay Sawant Vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Sra and 4 Ors.

Venkat a. Bhasha Boina and 4 Ors. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Cybage Software Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kumar Uttamchand Ailani and Anr. Vs Jyoti Suresh @ Pappu Budharmal Kalani and Ors.