Delhi High Court dismisses ML Sharma's plea seeking CBI probe into 2008 agreement between DMRC and Delhi Airport Metro

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma seeking an inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the 2008 agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Anil Ambani owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) [Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v Union of India and Ors]..A Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain said that a CBI investigation can be ordered only in rarest of rare cases but in the present matter, Sharma had filed a complaint with the agency only on February 19 and approached the court just two days later..In his petition, Sharma had alleged that the entire agreement was hit by fraud and corruption therefore an FIR should be registered under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to investigate and prosecute the accused persons.The agreement was signed between the DMRC and the DAMEPL, to develop and operate the Orange Line of the Delhi Metro that connects IGI Airport's Terminal-3 to Dwarka Sector-21.The petition said that it is because of the corruption in the agreement that the DMRC is now facing an execution petition under which it has to pay ₹7,100 crore to the DAMEPL.He, therefore, sought a direction to quash the execution proceedings pending before a single judge of the Delhi High Court..However, the Bench has held that even if Sharma’s argument is accepted that the agreement signed between the two entities was not by a competent authority, it would not constitute an offence to be investigated by the CBI.It said that the arbitral award arising out of the contract has been scrutinised by both the single judge and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court, therefore the matter does not call for any direction to direct CBI investigation.“This Court is further of the view that the prayer for quashing of the execution proceeding is contrary to law and completely untenable… In the opinion of this Court, examination of the present complaint by the CBI cannot be expected to be completed in two days. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature, as CBI has not had reasonable time to examine the complaint. This Court is confident that CBI shall examine the complaint filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that it is open for the CBI to take a decision which it deems fit and appropriate in the present case,” the Court said. .While ML Sharma appeared in person along with advocate Suman, the Union of India was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ajay Digpaul, advocates Kamal R Digpaul and Pinky Yadav.Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra and advocate Sanjay Law appeared for the Delhi Government. CBI was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Anupam S Sharma along with advocates Prakash Airan and Harpreet Kalsi..[Read order]