The Court noted that Swaminathan had suppressed the above facts and that he had failed to establish his bona fide. It also noted that despite having engaged a counsel, Swaminathan kept on interrupting the proceedings and attempted to argue personally via video conference while his counsel was present in the courtroom.
“Today, when the matter is taken up, the petitioner having engaged a counsel, was interfering with the court proceedings by arguing parallelly with his counsel, in spite of repeated warning given by us,” the Court noted.
The Court said that it realised on the perusal of the preliminary objections filed by the Board that Swaminathan had not filed this writ petition in public interest though it was styled as public interest litigation.
“The petitioner, under the guise of this Public Interest Litigation, is espousing his grievance towards non-awarding of contract to his brother,” the High Court said.
Source: Barandbench
