JUDGMENT N. M. Kasliwal, C. J.~Petitioner Dr. S. R. Mehrotra, Professor and Chairman, History Department, Himachal Pradesh University, Simla, filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 96/88, against the H. P. University. Miss Nisha Awasthi and others. The writ was filed by way of public interest litigation. Miss Nisha Awasthi was granted provisional admission in M. Sc Chemistry Degree Course, First Semester in 1987-88 Session in the month of November, 1987 against cultural quota and according to the petitioner such action on the part of the University was totally wrong and illegal and against the Ordinance framed by the University. On July 18, 1988 a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by passing the following operative order:—- "For the foregoing reasons and in light of the report of the Committee, which the Court accepts, and in view of the recorded statement of all the parties hereto that they would agree to the petition being disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee, if the same is accepted by the Court, Rule is made absolute. All the impugned actions of the University taken through its Executive Council and through the second respondent in favour of the fifth respondent, namely, the decision of the Executive Council to grant her admission in the M. Sc. Chemistry Degree Course, First Semester, 1987-88 sessions against the cultural quota, the decision of the second respondent to grant her provisional admission, the decision of the Executive Council to create a supernumerary seat in her favour and the decision to permit her the appear in the examination at the end of the Second Semester, are all quashed and set aside. All other and further and consequential actions, if any will also stand quashed automatically. Civil Suit (No. 44/1 of 88) filed by the fifth respondent in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla, the issues wherein are identical with the points raised for the determination of the Court in the present petition, will naturally require to be disposed of in conformity with the decision herein rendered. The application for interim relief made in the said suit will naturally follow the suit. The Court directs the parties to the said suit, who are also parties hereto, to move the said court for passing appropriate orders in that regard soonest after a certified copy of this judgment is made available to them. The application for interim relief made in the said suit will naturally follow the suit. The Court directs the parties to the said suit, who are also parties hereto, to move the said court for passing appropriate orders in that regard soonest after a certified copy of this judgment is made available to them. A copy of the writ order will be sent down by the Registry to the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs of the petition". 2. Miss Nisha Awasthi aggrieved against the aforesaid decision filed a Special Leave Petition (C) No 11052 of 1988 in the Honble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court passed the following order on 26-10-1988: "In the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The respondent, however, is directed to admit the petition in the next session which we are told commence from December 1988. The SLP is dismissed accordingly"- 3. The petitioner, Professor Mehrotra filed the present contempt petition on 29-10-1988 in this Court. It has been alleged in the petition that in the Writ Petition No. 96/88, this Court had issued an order on 4-5-1988 which among other things said the following: "Having regard to these various factors and considerations, the Court suggested to the parties that certain basic issues involved in the case be referred for the opinion of a Committee of academicians to be constituted by the Court and that all of them should agree to the petition being disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee, if accepted by the Court. The Court is happy to note that all the parties, including the respondent-University, have agreed to the suggestion accordingly made. Under the circumstances, the Court issues the following directions". (These directions are reproduced in the judgment of this Honble Court dated 18th July, 1988). 4. It has been contended that the opinion given by the Committee of academicians was accepted by the High Court and the Civil Writ Petition No. 96/88 was disposed of on 18th July, 1988 in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee. (These directions are reproduced in the judgment of this Honble Court dated 18th July, 1988). 4. It has been contended that the opinion given by the Committee of academicians was accepted by the High Court and the Civil Writ Petition No. 96/88 was disposed of on 18th July, 1988 in terms of the opinion rendered by the Committee. It has been submitted that the consent given in the open court on behalf of the respondent, Miss Nisha Awasthi by her Counsel on May 4, 1988 amounted to a solemn undertaking and despite the aforesaid solemn undertaking Miss Nisha Awasthi, filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated 18th July, 1988. According to the petitioner such action taken by Miss Awasthi was a clear violation of the undertaking given by her and amounted to contempt of the order of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 96/88. 5. Miss Awasthi has filed a reply to the petition in which it has been submitted that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact from this Court in not stating that Special Leave Petition was dismissed but the main relief was granted in her favour by which the H.P. University was directed to admit respondent Nisha in the next session which was to commence from December 1988. In the reply Miss Awasthi has also given various reasons to show that the report of the Committee was not proper and was not binding on her. It has further been submitted in the reply that the action of the petitioner in filing the present contempt petition for debarring a person from approaching a superior Court to ventilate the grievance is itself a contempt of court. 6. I have heard the petitioner who argued the petition himself as well as Sh. Chhabil Dass appearing for Miss Nisha Awasthi I may state that there can be no contempt committed by any person in approaching a superior court against any decision given by the lower court. There was no undertaking given by Miss Awasthi or by her Counsel that they will not go in appeal to the Supreme Court against any order or final decision given by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 96/88. There was no undertaking given by Miss Awasthi or by her Counsel that they will not go in appeal to the Supreme Court against any order or final decision given by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 96/88. If Miss Awasthi was aggrieved against the decision given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 96/88 on July 18, 1988, she had a legal right to challenge the aforesaid decision in the Supreme Court and the filing of S. L. P. in the Supreme Court can by no stretch of imagination can be said to be an act which may amount to contempt of Court. The petitioner had no justification at all in moving the present contempt petition for such act of the respondent Miss Awasthi and it is an abuse of any right being claimed under the plea of "public interest litigation". Even if for argument sake, it may be considered that the ultimate decision given by this Court on July 18, 1988 was based on the report of a Committee for which the Counsel for Miss Awasthi had given consent, even then there can be no contempt in case Miss Awasthi wanted to challenge the judgment dated July 18, 1988 in the Supreme Court. It is further important to note that the Supreme Court, while disposing of the S. L. P. filed by Miss Awasthi, had granted a relief by giving a clear direction to the University to admit the petitioner (Miss Awasthi) in the next session which was to commence from December 1988. This order was passed on October 26, 1988 and inspite of that the present contempt petition was filed in this Court on October 29, 1988. 7. The whole career of Miss Nisha Awasthi was at stake in view of the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No, 96/88 on July 18, 1988 and she was perfectly justified to challenge this judgment by going in appeal to the Supreme Court. 8. The purpose of public interest litigation is not to bring into dock in the Court to an individual student. The petitioner in a Professor in the Department of History and also a Member of various bodies/authorities including the Academic Council of the University as alleged by him but this does not give him a justification to file any petition of the present kind by way of public interest litigation. The petitioner in a Professor in the Department of History and also a Member of various bodies/authorities including the Academic Council of the University as alleged by him but this does not give him a justification to file any petition of the present kind by way of public interest litigation. There is no public interest in moving a contempt petition against any individual student. I clearly deprecate such kind of litigation on the part of an academician whose primary duty is to devote his time and energy in the academic matters and welfare of students of the University rather than to move petition like the present kind against any individual student. This kind of action on the part of the petitioner justifies the stand taken by the respondent that it is based on personal vendetta. 9. Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati (as he then was) who is the founder of the concept of public interest litigation has made it clear umpteen times and also in AIR 1984 SC 802, Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others, that public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the Government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must welcome public interest litigation, because it would provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor and the downtrodden are getting their social and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community and whether social and economic justice has become a meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a teasing illusion and a promise of unreality, so that in case the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to be true, they can in discharge of their constitutional obligation, root out exploitation and injustice and ensure to the weaker sections their rights and entitlement It has been further observed that of course, the Court would not, in exercise of its discretion, intervene at the instance of a meddlesome interloper or busybody and would ordinarily insist that only a person whose fundamental right is violated should be allowed to activise the Court. Where, however, the fundamental right of a person or class of a person is violated but who cannot have resort to the Court on account of their poverty or socially or economically disadvantaged position, the Court can and must allow any member of the public acting bonafide to espouse the cause of such person or class of persons and move the Court for judicial enforcement of the fundamental right of such person or class of persons. 10. The Supreme Court has entertained the petitions under the concept of public interest litigation in matters like bonded labours, amelioration of condition of prisoners, juvenile delinquents, foot-path dwellers, under-trial prisoners and such other matters where the above class of citizens belonging to very poor and downtrodden strata of the society are unable to approach the Courts., In order to grant justice, social, economic and political as enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has initiated the concept of public interest litigation. I am at a loss to understand as to how a contempt petition of the present kind filed by a Professor of the University against a student can at all come within the periphery of the concept of public interest litigation. I am at a loss to understand as to how a contempt petition of the present kind filed by a Professor of the University against a student can at all come within the periphery of the concept of public interest litigation. Even if the respondent Miss Awasthi may have been held to commit any contempt, it could hardly be of any interest to the public or muchless fulfilling any object of imparting justice, socio-economic and political to any class of society as a whole. 11. The petitioner has tried to justify his contention on the basis of the following two cases of the Supreme Court, that is, AIR 1976 SC 1909, Chhaganbhai Norsinbhai v. Soni Chandubhai Gordhanbhai and others, and AIR 1979 SC 1536, Smt. Pushpaben and another v. Narandas V. Badiani and another. Both the above cases are not at all applicable to the controversy raised in the present case and do not lay down the principle that any contempt is made out in case a party goes to a higher court by way of appeal or otherwise challenging the order of the lower court. 12. In the result, this contempt petition is dismissed with costs. The costs are quantified at Rs. 500. Contempt Petition dismissed.