TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Minister to win last assembly elections. It was alleged that the action of the Government amounted to doling out valuable State property as largess at throw away prices for political considerations. 3. The writ petition was filed, and was claimed to be, in public interest. The respondent described himself as the Chief Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress, a recognized political party. His party contested the previous election in alliance with the party that was in power at that time. The alliance got worsted in the election and Congress party was returned as a poor fourth. Respondent no.5 is a private limited company; it is represented through a person who is well-known as a film-maker but who also takes part in electoral politics. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was stated that Prakash Jha had fought the 2004 Lok Sabha Election from the Bettiah Lok Sabha Constituency. It is further stated that in. the last assembly election held in October-November, 2005 though not a candidate himself, he addressed public meetings jointly with the present Chief Minister in various parts of the State. As both the petitioner and said Prakash Jha are political ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. for consideration of ₹ 5.5 lakhs. The allotment made was subsequently cancelled and the consideration for allotment was fixed by raising the land value at the rate of 10% only as provided in Govt. letter dated 17.7.1982. It was also submitted that the petition was an abuse of Public Interest Litigation and deserves to be rejected outright. 7. After referring to the various stands, ultimately, the High Court came to observe that there was more than what met the eye and the allotment of land plots to respondent no.5 was done in a thoroughly irregular manner and the allotments are completely untenable. So far as the charge of malafides is concerned the State s submission was accepted by giving benefit of doubt . It was, however, observed that the authorities were in a hurry to go for private investment and that might have led to non-observance to some of the official norms was held to be completely unacceptable. The writ petition was disposed of with following observations and directions. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, I reject the allegation of malafide. But at the same time, I am unable to accept the submission that the Court should not inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt related to aspects which were not even pleaded in the writ petition. That being so, there was no scope for the respondents in the writ petition to throw any light on aspects which ultimately were taken note of by the High Court. It is pointed out that the writ petitioner himself accepted that he was a functionary of a political party. The petition is nothing but political vendata unleashed. 9. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and the Authority supported the stand taken by the appellant. On the contrary the respondent No.1-writ petitioner submitted that merely because the High Court has given the benefit of doubt to the State Government, it could not have closed eyes to the apparent illegalities which a bare perusal of the records revealed. The State and the Authorities, it is submitted, filed affidavits taking contrary stands. Stand which was stated in one affidavit was subsequently departed from. 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government.... 13. In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows: The expression litigation means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression PIL means the 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. 14. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: 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 soug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 busybodies, 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 Courts 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 busybodies 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. 21. 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 v. Prabhu, [1994] 2 SCC 481 and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR (1994) SC 2151,. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dical 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. 25. These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India Ors. [2004] 3 SCC 363 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2005] 1 SCC 590. 26. It is true that in certain cases even though the Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition was not in a public interest, yet if it finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter further in greater public interest, it can be done. This can be done by keeping the writ petitioner out of picture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be done in exceptional cases and not in a routine manner. 27. It is true as contented by learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court s conclusions were drawn after going through the files. It is apparent from records that the High Court did not ask the parties to clarify any doubt it entertained as regards certain crucial aspects. These aspects assume considerable importance because they have formed the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
