"He Deserves 'Super Nobel Prize'": ASG Comments About Petitioner Seeking Govt Grant To Implement His Ideas For Clean Environment

"I think he deserves a "super nobel prize" before we give him any grant," Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma commented today about a petitioner seeking review of a Delhi High Court's order dismissing his plea for grant of ₹70,000 crore from the Centre for implementing his project to clean environment.

When the matter came up for hearing, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh turned to the ASG who was appearing in another matter and asked,

"What do you think of this plea Mr. ASG? The petitioner claims that he has such nice plan for cleaning the air and water of this entire country that your Government does not have."

The Bench further informed the ASG that the original petition was dismissed by it with ₹50,000 cost for "wasting judicial resources".

"No ground is made out by the petitioner in person for allotment of such a huge amount for his project. The petition is lacking in fundamental particulars – including as to the nature of the project which the petitioner seeks to develop and implement with the assistance of the respondents. It ought to be kept in mind that the public money and resources cannot be wasted in this manner," the High Court had observed in its order dated 25 September, 2020.

Hearing this, the ASG responded, "I think he deserves a super nobel prize before we give him any grant."

He added that in any case, if the petitioner feels he has such an efficient plan or machinery, he should make a representation before the concerned authorities, so that the matter can be examined by the expert bodies.

The petition was filed by Mr. Trilok Goyal. He had suggested that a team of about 30 persons from various government departments may be placed at his disposal for this purpose.

During the course of hearing today, the Bench was of the opinion that the proceedings have perhaps been instituted to avoid payment of cost.

As the petitioner had failed to enter appearance, the Court adjourned the matter for hearing on January 28, 2022.

Meanwhile, the Registry has been directed to ascertain if the cost is paid or if the petitioner has filed a fabricated document, claiming the cost to have been paid.

Case Title: Trilok Goyal v. Union of India