Himachal Pradesh High Court
Prashant Mehta vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 6076/2020
Decided on : 15.3.2021
.
Prashant Mehta .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Vinod
Thakur, Mr. Vikas Rathore, Mr.Shiv Pal
Manhans, Addl.A.Gs. Mr. J. S. Guleria
and Mr. Bhupinder Thakur,Dy.A.Gs.for
respondentsState.
_____________________________________________________________________
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:
"(i) that writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to immediately close OHEL International School (Jolakhin) Kuthera, District Bilaspur, H.P., which was earlier being run without affiliation as well as fulfillment of codal formalities set under the RTE Act, since the respondents No. 9 to 11 are still misleading the innocent people and students of the aera by stating that they are following the ICSE syllabus.
(ii) that strict action may kindly be taken against the respondents No. 6 to 8 who have granted the permission to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 2
respondents No. 9 & 10 to run OHEL International School .
(Jolplakhin) Kuthera, District Bilaspur, H.P.
(iii) that the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to take appropriate legal action against the author of the Trust of the school i.e. respondent No.11, who apart from being the government employee is promoting the private school."
2. The petitioner claims to have filed this petition as Pro Bono Publico, questioned for an oblique motive, therefore, this Court is required to first satisfy itself regarding the credentials of the petitioner, the primafacie correctness of the information given by him because after all the attractive brand name of public interest litigation cannot be used for suspicious products of mischief. It has to be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicityoriented or founded on personal vendetta or private motive. The process of the Court cannot be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. The common rule of locusstandi in such cases is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained of on behalf of the poor, deprive, deprivation, illiterate and the disabled and who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. But, then while protecting the rights of the people from being violated ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 3 in any manner, utmost care has to be taken that the Court does .
not transgress its jurisdiction nor does it entertain petitions which are motivated. After all, public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs. It is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged. 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 public interest seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering justice to the citizens. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. It is for this reason that the Court must maintain social balance by interfering for the sake of justice and refuse to entertain where it is against the social justice and public good.
3. In the case of Shri Sachidanand Pandey and another versus The State of West Bengal and others AIR 1987 SC 1109, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "Today public spirited litigants rush to 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. Public Interest Litigation has now come to stay. But ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 4 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 no 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. This does not mean that traditional litigation should stay out. They have to be tackled by other effective methods, like decentralizing the judicial system and entrusting majority of traditional litigation to Village Courts and Lok Adalats without the usual populist stance and by a complete restructuring of the procedural law which is the villain in delaying disposal of cases... It is only when Courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basis human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the Courts, especially the Supreme Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. It is necessary to have some selfimposed restraint on Public Interest Litigants."
4. In S.P.Anand, Indore versus H.D.Deve Gowda and others (1996) 6 SCC 734, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "18..... It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 5 wherein they are not wellversed. Such a litigant must not .
succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the Court that he does not rush to Court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on halfbaked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the Court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the Court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filing a series of petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as concluding the point. We say this because when we drew the attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court, he brushed them aside, without so much as showing willingness to deal with them and without giving them a second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by passage of time and challenged their correctness on the specious plea that they needed reconsideration. Except for saying that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to the correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to considered decisions of this Court even by a person wellversed in law would not be countenanced. Instead, as pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no bearing on the question, like the decisions on ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 6 cow slaughter cases, freedom of speech and expression, uniform .
civil code, etc; we need say no more except to point out that indiscriminate use of this important lever of public interest litigation would blunt the lever itself."
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mr. 'X' versus Hospital 'Z' (1998) 8 SCC 296 held as follows: "15. "Right" is an interest recognised and protected by moral or legal rules. It is an interest the violation of which would be a legal wrong. Respect for such interest would be a legal duty. That is how Salmond has defined "Right". In order, therefore, that an interest becomes the subject of a legal right, it has to have not merely legal protection but also legal recognition, the elements of a "legal right" are that the 'right' is vested in a person and is available against a person who is under a corresponding obligation and duty to respect that right and has to act or forbear from acting in a manner so as to prevent the violation of the right, If, therefore, there is a legal right vested in a person, the latter can seek its protection against a person who is bound by a corresponding duty not to violate that right."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) versus Union of India and others (2002) 2 SCC 333 held as under: "77.Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 7 stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where .
fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress, were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the Court, so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., "litigation in the interest of the public"."
7. In Ashok Kumar Pandey versus State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering few decisions on the aspect of public interest litigation observed as follows: "4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 8 a knight errant or poke ones nose into for a probe. 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 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 versus H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. 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 vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620)."
5.It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest litigation'. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
6.In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 9"Public Interest something in which the public, the .
community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national government."
7.In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Court has laid down as follows : (SCC p.331) "53.The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
8.In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: (SCC p.334) "62.Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold."
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 109.In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out .
as follows : (SCC pp.345346) "98.While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."
10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC p.348, para 109) "109.It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold."
11.It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 11 the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are .
infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death and facing the gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system.
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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 12 seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in .
the armoury of law for delivering social justice to 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 bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
13.The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined the "public interest litigation" in its report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
"Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others."::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 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; and (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 motives, 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 publicspirited 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 interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC 481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR ReRolling Mills and Anr., (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 vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, JT (1996) 7 SC ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 14
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 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 and Ors. v.
Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts 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 petitions 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 15 message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with .
oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
17......
18.In S.P.Gupta versus Union of India 1981 Supp. SCC 87 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. It has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24) "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 legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective."
19.In State of H.P. vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors. (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 vs. State of W.B., (1987 (2) SCC 295, (SCC at page 331) said:
"Today public spirited litigants rush to 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) ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 16 * * * .
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) * * * 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 self imposed restraint on public interest litigants. (SCC p.335, para 61)"
21. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. 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. See also separate judgment by Pathak, J. (as he then was) in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, (1984 (3) SCC 161).
22.Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (1976 (1) SCC 671) expressed his view ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 17 that the application of a busybody should be rejected at the .
threshold in the following terms: (SCC p. 683, para 37) "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 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."
23.Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sundri and Ors. v. Union of India, (1981 (1) SCC 568) in stronger terms stated: (SCC p.589, para 48) "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."
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 1824.In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of .
U.P., (1990 (4) SCC 449), Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. observed:
(SCC p.452, 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 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."
25. 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 also 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."
26.In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991 (1) SCC 598) it was observed as follows: (SCC pp.60405, para 7) "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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 19 it would amount to abuse of process of the court, .
preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this 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 fundamental rights of affected persons 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."
27.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."
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 208. In Dr. B. Singh versus Union of India and others .
(2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicityoriented 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 by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the past time 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 219. In R & M Trust versus Koramangala Residents .
Vigilance Group and others (2005) 3 SCC 91, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "23. Next question is whether such Public Interest Litigation should at all be entertained & laches thereon. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends.
24. Public Interest Litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought very bad name. Courts should be very very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest in a very rare cases where public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the down trodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The Courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding implication and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in a very rare and few cases involving public interest of large number of ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 22 people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the .
hands of the authorities......."
10. In Gurpal Singh versus State of Punjab and others (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. 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 motives, 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 publicspirited 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.
6.........
7. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 23 something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with .
large number of so called public interest litigations where only 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. High 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 and others 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 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 petitions 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.
8.......
9. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 24 efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL .
and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing the gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to loose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.
10. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 25 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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to 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 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 rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
11. In Kushum Lata versus Union of India and others (2006) 6 SCC 180, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "5. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 26 "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or .
"politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the second category. 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. The 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 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 vs. 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 vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620)."::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 27
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A .
Regd. Society) versus Union of India and others (2008) 5 SCC 511 observed as under: "59. Unfortunately, the truth is that PILs are being entertained by many courts as a routine and the result is that the dockets of most of the superior courts are flooded with PILs, most of which are frivolous or for which the judiciary has no remedy. As stated in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's versus State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590, public interest litigation has nowadays largely become "publicity interest litigation", "private interest litigation", or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". Much of PIL is really blackmail.
60. Thus, Public Interest Litigation which was initially created as a useful judicial tool to help the poor and weaker section of society who could not afford to come to courts, has, in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, in paragraphs 178, 179, 180 and 181, laid down the following guidelines relating to Public Interest Litigation: ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 28 "178.We must abundantly make it clear that we are not .
discouraging the Public Interest Litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the Courts for improving ecology and environment, and the directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. etc. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the Courts to encourage genuine bonafide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in consonance with the Constitution and the laws.
179. The Public Interest Litigation, which has been in existence in our country for more than four decades, has a glorious record. This Court and the High Courts by their judicial creativity and craftsmanship have passed a number of directions in the larger public interest in consonance with the inherent spirits of the Constitution. The conditions of marginalized and vulnerable section of society have significantly improved on account of Court's directions in PIL.
180. In our considered view, now it has become imperative to streamline the PIL.
181.We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other Courts in a number of judgments. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 29 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 General of this court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts 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 Courts 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."
14. In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others (2014) 5 SCC 530, a Bench ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 30 comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court .
observed as under: "49.The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under the particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public interest litigation."
15. To similar effect is another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Environment and Consumer Protection ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 31 Foundation vs. Union of India and others (2017) 16 SCC 780 .
wherein it was observed as under:
"29. Why are the Action Plan and these directions necessary? We seem to be forgetting the power of Public Interest Litigation and therefore need to remind ourselves, from time to time, of its efficacy in providing social justice. Many years ago, this Court noted in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235 that :(SCC p. 240, para 2) "2...Public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed. That would be destructive of the rule of law which forms one of the essential elements of public interest in any democratic form of Government."
A little later in the judgment, it was said: (SCC pp.24243, para 3) "3....Millions of persons belonging to the deprived and vulnerable sections of humanity are looking to the courts for improving their life conditions and making basic human rights meaningful for them. They have been crying for justice but their cries have so far been in the wilderness. They have been suffering injustice silently with the patience of a rock, without the strength even to shed any tears."
30. The advantage of public interest litigation is not only to empower the economically weaker sections of society but also to empower those suffering from social disabilities that may not necessarily of their making. The widows of Vrindavan (and ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 32 indeed in other ashrams) quite clearly fall in this category of a .
socially disadvantaged class of our society.
31. Placing empowerment in perspective, this Court noted in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402 that (at SCC p. 427, para 43) the first phase of public interest litigation concerned itself with primarily with the protection of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution 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." We may add - the socially underprivileged groups. These are the people who have no real access to justice and in that sense are voiceless, and these are the people who need to be empowered and whose cause needs to be championed by those who advocate social justice for the disadvantaged.
32. This recognition formed the basis of the decision of this Court in Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity & Rights of Sewerage & Allied Workers(2011) 8 SCC 568 wherein providing succour to the deprived sections of society was recognized as a "constitutional duty" of this Court. Referring to several judgments delivered by this Court, it was observed: (SCC p. 590, para 31) "31. These judgments are a complete answer to the appellant's objection to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by Respondent 1.What the High Court has done by entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions for protection of the persons employed to do work relating to sewage operations is part of its obligation to do justice to the disadvantaged and poor sections of the society. We may add that the superior courts will be failing in their constitutional duty if they decline to entertain petitions filed by genuine social groups, NGOs and social workers for espousing the cause of those who are deprived of the basic rights available to every human being, what to say of fundamental rights ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 33 guaranteed under the Constitution. It is the duty of the judicial .
constituent of the State like its political and executive constituents to protect the rights of every citizen and every individual and ensure that everyone is able to live with dignity."
16. It would thus be clear that public interest litigation can only be entertained at the instance of a bonafide litigant and cannot be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievance as a public interest litigation. The instant petition fails to qualify the above parameters.
17. It has repeatedly come to the notice not only of this Court, but also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a lot of misuse of public interest litigation, which now is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process.
18. We need not multiply or make reference to a large number of judgments in this regard and reference to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered by three Hon'ble Judges' Bench in this regard shall suffice.
19. In Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India and another (2018) 6 SCC 72, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of object of a public interest litigation and its misutilization by persons with personal agenda observed as under:
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 34"Public Interest Litigation .
96. Public Interest Litigation has developed as a powerful tool to espouse the cause of the marginalised and oppressed. Indeed, that was the foundation on which public interest jurisdiction was judicially recognised in situations such as those in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161. Persons who were unable to seek access to the judicial process by reason of their poverty, ignorance or illiteracy are faced with a deprivation of fundamental human rights. Bonded labour and under trials (among others) belong to that category. The hallmark of a public interest petition is that a citizen may approach the court to ventilate the grievance of a person or class of persons who are unable to pursue their rights. Public interest litigation has been entertained by relaxing the rules of standing. The essential aspect of the procedure is that the person who moves the court has no personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings apart from a general standing as a citizen before the court. This ensures the objectivity of those who pursue the grievance before the court. Environmental jurisprudence has developed around the rubric of public interest petitions. Environmental concerns affect the present generation and the future. Principles such as the polluter pays and the public trust doctrine have evolved during the adjudication of public interest petitions. Over time, public interest litigation has become a powerful instrument to preserve the rule of law and to ensure the accountability of and transparency within structures of governance. Public interest litigation is in that sense a valuable instrument and jurisdictional tool to promote structural due process.
97. Yet over time, it has been realised that this jurisdiction is capable of being and has been brazenly misutilised by persons with a personal agenda. At one end of that spectrum are those cases where public interest petitions are motivated by a desire to ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 35 seek publicity. At the other end of the spectrum are petitions .
which have been instituted at the behest of business or political rivals to settle scores behind the facade of a public interest litigation. The true face of the litigant behind the façade is seldom unravelled. These concerns are indeed reflected in the judgment of this court in State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402. Underlining these concerns, this court held thus: (SCC p.453, para 143).
"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and nonmonetary directions by the courts."
98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 36 spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a .
grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extrajudicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space."
20 The aforesaid observations were relied upon and reiterated by another Hon'ble three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a very recent case in Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr., Suo Motu Contempt Petition (CRL.) No. 1 of 2020, decided on 31.08.2020.
21 From the aforesaid exposition of law, it can safely be concluded that the Court would allow litigation in public interest only if it is found: ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 37
(i) That the impugned action is violative of any of .
the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India or any other legal right and relief is sought for its enforcement;
(ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or malafide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest or on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;
(iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law;
(iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busy body or a meddlesome interloper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance;
(v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciable in such litigation;
(vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest
was such that if not remedied or prevented would
weaken the faith of the common man in the
institution of the judicial and the democratic set up of the country;
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 38(vii) That the State action was being tried to be .
covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out on technicalities;
(viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court was of such a nature which required examination;
(ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives;
(x) That before taking any action in public interest the Court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busy body or persons of groups with mala fide objective or either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to blackmailing or considerations extraneous to public interest. 22 Tested on the angle of the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that this is second petition at the instance of the petitioner, who, as per averments made in the writ petition, is himself the Chairman of the adjoining school i.e. Anupam Public Senior Secondary School, Kuthera.
23 The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 1443/2019, wherein also this Court had clearly ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:41 :::HCHP 39 observed that the possibility of business rivalry between the .
petitioner and respondent No.9 i.e. OHEL International School (Jolplakhin) Kuthera could not be ruled out and further held that the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
However, what prevailed upon the Court to issue certain innocuous directions was that the complaint filed by the petitioner had not been decided by the competent authority and the petition was accordingly disposed of by directing respondent No.4 i.e. Director of Elementary Education to decide the complaint within a period of two months, as is evident from the order dated 17.7.2019, which reads as under: "Notice only confined to respondents No.1 to 5 is accepted by Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General.
2. Present is a case where the petitioner, Chairman of another Public School, namely, Anupam Public Senior Secondary School, Kuthera,Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., has made a complaint (Annexure P1) to respondentState against respondent No.9, i.e. OHEL International School (Jolplakhin), Kuthera, District Bilaspur, H.P. Therefore, the possibility of business rivalry (between petitioner and respondent No.9/School), cannot be ruled out. Though, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, since the grouse of the petitioner is that the complaint (Annexure P1) has not been decided by the competent authority and as submitted by learned counsel, he would feel content, in case the competent authority is directed to dispose of ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:42 :::HCHP 40 the complaint in a time bound manner. Accordingly, the writ .
petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.4, Director of Elementary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, H.P., to decide the complaint (Annexure P1) made by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment alongwith that of the representation by the petitioner before the said respondent, by passing a reasoned order, after affording an opportunity of being heard, if so asked for. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The application, i.e. CMP No.5962 of 2019, shall also stand disposed of."
24 Here, it would be necessary to notice that the aforesaid directions were passed on the first date itself without issuing notice to the private respondents.
25 Be that as it may, respondent No.4 i.e. Director of Elementary Education, vide order dated 17.3.2020, has, after associating all the stake holders, considered and rejected the representation of the petitioner by observing as under: "That in compliance to these orders, the petitioner along with other concerned authorities were directed to be present on 16.10.2019 along with record and they did the same. On the date of hearing Sh. Prashant Mehta, the petitioner requested to close OHEL International School (Jolplakhin) Kuthera, District Bilaspur, H.P., which is running without affiliation as well as fulfillment of all codal formalities under RTE Act. The the detailed report in respect of this case was sought from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education Bilaspur. The perusal of the record/report of the case revealed that OHEL ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:42 :::HCHP 41 International School submitted the application for affiliation in .
the office of BEEO GhumarwinI on 6.4.2017. Pursuant to it BEEO GhumarwinI visited the said school personally on 9.10.2017. At that time some shortcomings were noticed i.e. Building Safety Certificate issued by private architecture instead of Executive Engineer PWD, Departmental NOC and resolution of concerned Panchayat was also not obtained by the concerned school management. As per the fresh report submitted by DDEE Bilaspur on 19.12.2019, the said school has basic infrastructure such as class rooms, playgrounds, drinking water/toilet facility, library, sports equipments with sufficient trained teachers as required under the RTE Act as on date including certificates of building safety/fire safety issued by the competent authority. Hence, the school is fulfilling the norms/terms and conditions contained in RTE Act 2009 w.e.f. June 2018 and as such school can be allowed to run in these circumstances. But at that relevant time, it was the duty of the concerned BEEO GhumarwinI to examine the issue of issuance of NOC in favour of the concerned school with due diligence, but he allowed the school to run without fulfillment of all norms & standards as per RTE Act, 2009. For this act on his part, BEEO GhumarwinI is being issue show cause notice & further action in the matter will be taken after receipt of his reply to the show cause. With these observations the representation of the petitioner is disposed of after due consideration. All the concerned be intimated accordingly."
26 We really wonder how the petitioner is aggrieved when this Court had already raised a big question mark on his locus being a business rivalry, yet the petitioner would try and claim ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:42 :::HCHP 42 that respondent No.9 was misleading innocent people and .
students of the area and running the school by extracting hefty fees. Even though details of such fees have not been set out anywhere in the petition.
27 That apart, unless and until there is violation of any law, the court cannot simply step in to issue directions, that too, at the instance of a party, who lacks locus standi, more particularly, when it is established on record that the petitioner has a rivalry and the instant petition has been filed for achieving an oblique motive and, therefore, is clearly not maintainable.
Rather, the instant petition is a gross abuse of process of Court and, therefore, needs to be nipped in the bud.
28 Since the petitioner has indulged in public mischief for oblique motive, this Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with such imposters, busybody and meddlesome interlopers impersonating to be a public spirited holy men. The petitioner cannot masquerade as crusader of justice and is only pretending to act in the name of probono publico, though he has no interest in the public to protect. The instant petition has been filed under ploy for achieving oblique motives.
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:42 :::HCHP 4329 It is more than settled that merely because a petition .
is styled as a "Public Interest Litigation" but in fact is nothing more than a camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendetta and the petitioner in fact is a proxy litigant the same cannot be regarded as a Public Interest Litigation. There has to be a real and genuine public interest involved in a litigation and there must be concrete and credible basis for maintaining a cause before the Court and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. Only a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person(s) for personal gain or private profit or any other oblique consideration.
30 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 public interest seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens.
::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:42 :::HCHP 4431 The attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation .
cannot be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. This has so been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various pronouncements and the same have been repeatedly reiterated and followed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No.7249/2010 titled 'Devinder Chauhan Jaita versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others', being lead case, decided on 03.12.2014, another batch of writ petitions, CWP No.9480/2014 titled 'Vijay Kumar Gupta versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others', being the lead case, decided on 09.01.2015, CWP No.2775/2015 titled 'Anurag Sharma and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others', decided on 07.07.2015, CWP No.328 of 2016 titled 'Lala Ram and others versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 01.03.2016, CWP No.4838 of 2015 titled 'Ali Mohammed versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 16.03.2016, CWP No.4240 of 2015 titled 'Om Prakash Sharma versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 19.04.2016 and CWP No.3131 of ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:42 :::HCHP 45 2014, titled 'Dr.J.S.Chauhan versus State of H.P. and .
others, decided on 06.05.2016.
32 In view of aforesaid discussions, not only is there no merit in this petition, but the same is also mischievous and has only resulted in wastage of precious Court's time, which could have been better utilized for disposal of the cases for genuine litigant(s).
33 Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/ to be paid/deposited by the petitioner to the account of H.P. High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund within a period of two months from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
For compliance to come up on 17.5.2021.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 15.3.2021 Judge (pankaj) ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2021 20:13:42 :::HCHP