Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anurag Sharma And Another vs State Of H.P. And Others on 7 July, 2015
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2775 of 2015H Reserved on: 01.07.2015 .
Decided on: 07.07.2015
Anurag Sharma and another ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents.
Coram
r to
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice The writ petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of this writ petition for issuing the following writs on the grounds taken in the memo of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP : 2 : writ petition:
"(i) That the impugned acts of respondents .
No. 1 to 5 above stated which amounts to executive inaction on their part and most irresponsible behaviour of respondent No. 6 and its leaders while making statement of the situation above stated may kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to respondents No. 1 to 5 to appoint committee of experts from the office of respondent No. 2 to frame guidelines to be followed in its letter and spirit in future with respect to issuing statements in print and social media and further directions may kindly be issued to respondents 1 to 5 rto immediately and promptly book the persons who violate said guidelines.
Respondent No. 6 may kindly be directed to evolve its own guidelines so that restraints can be put on its leaders not to encash the sentiments of the innocent citizens of the State of HP in a situation like present one and further not to issue statements without verifying true and correct aspect of a situation and further more to put restraints on its leaders not to aggravate the false situation like present one in future.
(ii) Directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to act immediately and promptly to book the wrong doers in the case in hand and the said persons may kindly be prosecuted in accordance with law for violating the particular provisions of law and the said prosecution may be taken to its logical end so that the same can act eyeopener for others in coming times.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP: 3 :
(iii) That directions may kindly be issued to the political leaders in the State of HP to be more cautious and careful in making .
statements and be more responsible, particularly in a situation like above stated so that peace of the State can be maintained as in the present case, the statements made by leaders of respondent No. 6 were contrary to the public peace and tranquility thereby creating need to issue appropriate directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
(iv) That respondent No. 7 and 8 who took very active part in time and again displaying the false messages and posting r the same to other people also without confirming the news, SHO, Police Station, Kangra may kindly be directed to investigate into the matter with respect to the part played by respondents No. 7 and 8 in giving air to the false news and the said respondents may kindly be ordered to be booked, dealt with and prosecution in accordance with law.
(v) Records of the case may kindly be summoned.
(vi) Any other relief as may be deemed just and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners"
2. In fact, the writ petitioners have pleaded that this writ petition be treated as public interest litigation, is not permissible for the following reasons:
3. The writ petitioners have to carve out a cause that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP : 4 : the litigation is in the interest of public at large, they have no interest in the litigation and it is not a publicity interest .
litigation or private interest litigation or politics interest litigation or paisa making interest or for any other oblique purpose.
4. The writ petitioners in para 3 of the writ petition have specifically averred that they are wedded to Indian National Congress and holding the district cadre posts in District Kangra , but, in the same breath, they have stated that they are public spirited persons.
5. The perusal of the writ petition does disclose that it is not in the public interest, appears to be for some other reasons, which, prima facie, have been disclosed in paras 3, 3
(a) and 4 of the writ petition. Virtually, the writ petitioners are trying to draw some action against the opponent political leaders or the persons who have allegedly made the false statements against the sitting MLA/Cabinet Minister and his relatives in order to gain political edge.
6. It is apt to reproduce paras 3, 3 (a) and 4 of the writ petition herein:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP: 5 : "3. The facts, as necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition, are that the petitioners apart from being .
wedded to Indian National Congress and are holding the posts in the said party in District Kangra, are also public spirited persons and have been pursuing public causes at given intervals. With respect to this aspect of the matter, no other and further details are being given; however, in case contradicted by any of the parties, said details will be mentioned. This fact is being stated, more particularly in view of the fact that very very burning issue is sought to be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court by way of present writ petition, as the particular respondents arrayed as respondents have failed to abide by the dictate of law while handling the situation qua which details are being given here in below and further being office bearers of the opposite party in the State of HP, it failed to check in the public cause in its right perspective, being professed by its leaders and members. The situation owing to said aspect so aggravated that there were agitations and dharnas and respondents will not deny this aspect of the matter that just owing to the hoax created by giving totally false statements in the press and social media, situation boiled down to such an extent that had it not been checked particularly on the requests having been made by the petitioners and like minded persons that there ought to have been constitutional break down in the State of HP.
In view of this only, the present writ petition is being filed to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction as is vested in this Hon'ble Court solely for the sake of justice/substantial justice so that in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP : 6 : future such like happening may not be there at least in the State of HP which is particularly a clam loving State.
.
3(a) That present is not an adversary litigation but the writ petition is being filed solely in the public interest and petitioners humbly submit that there may not be any other glaring situation as was arose in District Kangra at Dharamshala and to control such situation in public interest. Therefore, respondents are liable to evolve procedure, to follow and get the same followed.
4. That there is yet another aspect owing to which the petitioners are invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as a few miscreants, with the help of leaders of opposite parties, took advantage of the situation and left no stone unturned to malign the image of sitting MLA from Dharamshala and a Cabinet Minister. this is not expected at all from the leaders who have remained themselves as Ministers. In this view of the matter only, respondent No. 6 is added as party respondent. This Hon'ble Court is humbly requested to issue suitable directions to all the political parties, particularly respondent No. 6 to guide its members and leaders not to react unnecessarily and without confirming the news. The leaders may be having political rivalry, but that cannot be allowed to be used for personal cause and in any manner which amounts to hitting another person below the belt. This is what has been done by the leaders of respondent No. 6 while issuing statements in the press with respect to the incident in question."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP: 7 :
7. The police authorities are seized of the matter and it is for the police to carry out investigation and if case is .
made out or if false statement has been made, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC") can be invoked.
8. The persons, against whom allegations have been made, are not before the Court and it appears that under the disguise of public interest, they are trying to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in order to meet the political ends on behalf of the Cabinet Minister/MLA, mention of which has been made in para 6 of the writ petition. We wonder why the said Minister/MLA and so called the nephew of the Minister have not invoked the appropriate remedy, if any, in order to seek the redressal of their grievances.
9. The origin of the public interest litigation has been discussed by the Apex Court right from inception, particularly from the year 1976. The Apex Court in a case titled as Ashok Kumar Pandey versus State of West Bengal and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 280, has given details ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP : 8 : as to how a petition can be treated as public interest litigation and held that it is a weapon to be used with great care, with .
all circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases and it is the duty of the Court to lift the veil and see what is behind it. It is apt to reproduce paras 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18 to 28 of the judgment herein:
r to "12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP : 9 : bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs .
.
13. ..............
14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motive, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP : 10 : interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC
481), and Andhra Pradesh State .
Financial Corporation v. M/s. GARRe Rolling Mills and another (AIR 1994 SC 2151). No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B. K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public.
16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of socalled PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:15 :::HCHP : 11 : could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official .
documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitioners but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
17. ................
18. In Gupta's case (supra) it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left the following note of caution : (SCC p. 219, para 24) "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 12 : legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective."
.
19. In State of H. P. v. A. Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and others (1985 (3) SCC 169), it has been said that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection.
20. Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W. B. (1987 (2) SCC 295, 331) said :
"Today public spirited litigants rush rto Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. (SCC p. 331, para
46) xx xx xx Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to Courts and public alike.
Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If Courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions, (SCC p. 334, para 59) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 13 : xx xx xx I will be second to none in extending .
help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some selfimposed restraint on public interest litigants."
21. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India (1989 Supp (1) SCC 251), was in full agreement with the view expressed by Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey's case (supra) and added that 'public interest litigation' is an instrument of the administration of justice to be used properly in proper cases.
22. See also separate judgment by Pathak, J. (as he then was) in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 (3) SCC
161).
23. Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others (1976 (1) SCC 671) expressed his view that the application of the busybody should be rejected at the threshold in the following terms (SCC p.
683, para 37) :
"It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 14 : persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend .
to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold."
24. Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sundri and others v. Union of India, (1981 (1) SCC 568) in stronger terms stated (SC p. 589, para 48) :
"If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the Court will not be ajar for him."
25. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U. P. (1990 (4) SCC 449), Sabyasachi Mukharji, C. J. observed : (SCC p. 457, para 8) "While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 15 : not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventing other .
genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court."
26. In Union Carbide Corporation v.
Union of India, (1991 (4) SCC 584, 610), Ranganath Mishra, C. J. in his separate judgment while concurring with the conclusions of the majority judgment has said thus (SCC p. 610, para 21):
"I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public activists should ralso be permitted to espouse the cause of the poor citizens but there must be a limit set to such activity and nothing perhaps should be done which would affect the dignity of the Court and bring down the serviceability of the institution to the people at large. Those who are acquainted with jurisprudence and enjoy social privilege as men educated in law owe an obligation to the community of educating it properly and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled."
27. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991 (1) SCC 598) it was observed as follows :
"public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 16 : Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the .
Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the r fundamental rights of affected person and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation".
28. In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) "the Courts must be careful in entertaining public interest litigations" or in the words of Sarkaria, J. "the applications of the busybodies should be rejected at the threshold itself" and as Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out, "the doors of the Courts should not be ajar for such vexatious litigants"."
10. The Apex Court also in a case titled as M.C. Mehta versus Union of India & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 17 : SCW 6459, laid down the tests how jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked and which petition can be treated as a public .
interest litigation. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 10 and 11 herein:
"8. We have no doubt in our mind that judiciary may step in where it finds the actions on the part of the Legislature or the Executive are illegal or unconstitutional but the same by itself would not mean that public interest litigation, in a case of this nature, should be converted into an adversarial litigation.
The jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ of continuous mandamus is only to see that proper investigation is carried out. Once the court satisfies itself that a proper investigation has been carried out, it would not venture to take over the functions of the Magistrate or pass any order which would interfere with its judicial functions. Constitutional scheme of this country envisages dispute resolution mechanism by an independent and impartial tribunal. No authority, save and except a superior court in the hierarchy of judiciary, can issue any direction which otherwise take away the discretionary jurisdiction of any court of law. Once a final report has been filed in terms of subsection (1) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the Magistrate and Magistrate alone who can take appropriate decision in the matter one way or the other. If it errs while passing a judicial order, the same may be a subject matter of appeal or judicial review. There may a possibility of the prosecuting agencies not approaching the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 18 : higher forum against an order passed by the learned Magistrate, but the same by itself would not confer a jurisdiction on .
this Court to step in. We should not entertain the application of the learned Amicus Curiae on such presupposition. A judicial order passed by a Magistrate may be right or wrong, but having regard to the hierarchy of the courts, the matter which would fall for consideration before the higher court should not be a subject matter of a decision of this bench. In an unlikely event of the interested parties in not questioning such orders before the higher forum, an independent public interest litigation may be filed. Instances are not unknown where this Court has entertained public interest litigation in cases involving similar question under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. [See Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan VIII v. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC 613].
9. ..................
10. The parameters within which this Court should function in such matters are, therefore, welldefined.
11. It is one thing to say that this Court will not refrain from exercising its jurisdiction from issuing any direction for protection of cultural heritage and the ecology and environment; but then in discharge of the said duty, this Court should not take upon itself the task of determining the guilt or otherwise of an individual involved in the criminal proceeding. It should not embark upon an enquiry in regard to the allegations of criminal misconduct so as to form an opinion one way or the other so as to prima facie determine guilt of a person or ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 19 : otherwise. Any direction which could be issued, in our opinion, has already been issued by us on 27.11.2006, stating :
.
"34. We, accordingly, direct CBI to place the evidence/material collected by the investigating team along with the report of the SP as required under Section 173(2) CrPC before the court/Special Judge concerned who will decide the matter in accordance with law. It is necessary to add that, in this case, we were concerned with ensuring proper and honest performance of duty by CBI and our above observations and reasons are r confined only to that aspect of the case and they should not be understood as our opinion on the merits of accusation being investigated. We do not wish to express any opinion on the recommendations of the SP. It is made clear that none of the other opinions/recommendations including that of the Attorney General for India, CVC shall be forwarded to the court/Special Judge concerned."
11. The Apex Court in the cases titled as Neetu versus State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW448, and A. Abdul Farook versus Municipal Council, Perambalur & Ors., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5292, has laid down the same principle.
12. In another case titled as M/s. Holicow Pictures ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 20 : Pvt. Ltd. versus Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 343, the Apex Court has held that the Courts .
should filter out the frivolous petitions. It is apt to reproduce paras 18 and 22 as under:
"18. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and / or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory r of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 21 : rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
.
19. .................
20. .................
21. .................
22. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 22 : motive do not have the approval of the Courts."
.
13. It would also be profitable to reproduce para 10 of the judgment in M/s. Holicow Pictures's case (supra) herein:
"10. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 23 : and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any .
oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC
305) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. {See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K. R. Srinivas v.
R. M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620)."
14. The Apex Court in the case titled as State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and has dealt with the origin and development of public interest litigation and has also summarized the basic principles which can be made foundation for preserving the purity and sanctity of public interest litigation. It is apt to reproduce paras 45 and 198 of the judgment herein:
"45. In this judgment, we would like to deal with the origin and development of public interest litigation. We deem it appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in three phases.
PhaseI: It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 24 : primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of the society who .
because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this court or the High Courts.
PhaseII: It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments etc. etc. PhaseIII: It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance.
xxx xxx xxx
198. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 25 : General of this court immediately thereafter.
.
(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved r before entertaining the petition.
(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."
15. The Apex Court has also discussed the issue in the cases titled as Girish Vyas & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 3088, and Ayaaubkhan ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 26 : Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 6177. It is apt to reproduce para .
132 of the judgment in Girish Vyas's case (supra) herein:
"132. Public Interest Litigation is not in the nature of adversarial litigation, but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful as observed by this Court in paragraph 9 of Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India, [AIR 1984 SC 802. By its very nature the PIL is inquisitorial in character. Access to justice r being a Fundamental Right and citizen's participatory role in the democratic process itself being a constitutional value, accessing the Court will not be readily discouraged. Consequently, when the cause or issue, relates to matters of good governance in the Constitutional sense, and there are no particular individuals or class of persons who can be said to be injured persons, groups of persons who may be drawn from different walks of life, may be granted standing for canvassing the PIL. A Civil Court acts only when the dispute is of a civil nature, and the action is adversarial. The Civil Court is bound by its rules of procedure. As against that the position of a Writ Court when called upon to act in protection of the rights of the citizens can be stated to be distinct."
16. It would also be profitable to reproduce para 22 of the judgment in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan's case (supra) herein:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP: 27 : "22. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at .
hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in r the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo motu, in such respect."
17. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Institute of Law and others versus Neeraj Sharma and others, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 6357.
18. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 7249 of 2010, titled as Devinder Chauhan Jaita versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, being the lead case, decided on 03.12.2014 and another batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 9480 of 2014, titled as Vijay Kumar Gupta versus State of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP : 28 : Himachal Pradesh & others, being the lead case, decided on 09.01.2015.
.
19. Keeping in view the averments contained in the writ petition read with the origin of public interest litigation, development of law and the test laid down by the Apex Court, it can be safely held that the writ petition merits to be dismissed in limine for the reason that entire litigation appears to be politically motivated, which is admitted by the writ petitioners in the writ petition, as discussed hereinabove.
20. Having glance of the above discussions, this writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed in limine.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge July 07, 2015 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:16 :::HCHP