HANSARIA, J. ( 1 ) A public-spirited advocate of the Orissa High Court Bar Association has filed this application challenging the call given by the Chief Minister, Orissa as published in daily newspapers of the State to beat corrupt officials; of course, after taking permission from him. The case of the petitioner is that this public call violates the basic structure of our Constitution and is against the rule of law. He seeks an injunction in this regard. ( 2 ) ). Learned Advocate-General contests the competence of the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this public interest litigation. According to him, the petitioner has taken up the cause of corrupt officers and does not possess any enforceable right, because of which he cannot be described as a "person aggrieved". It is submitted that as the present application is not meant for enforcing fundamental rights of those who have no adequate means of access to this Court and is not against violation of the Constitution or law resulting in substantial injury to public interest, we may not to hear the grievance of the petitioner. The final contention in this regard is that as the officers themselves who are aggrieved with the call of the Chief Minister have not approached this Court, the present public interest litigation by the petitioner on their behalf may not be entertained. ( 3 ) IN this connection, we have been referred to certain renderings of the apex Court as well as of different High Courts. It was stated in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 , that if a meddlesome interlopper or a busybody approaches the court in the garb of public interest litigation, the court should not hear him. The petitioner cannot at all be regarded as belonging to the aforesaid category of persons inasmuch as he, being a member of the Bar, is vitally interested in preservance of the rule of law and if the call given by the Chief Minister to beat corrupt officials encourages people to take law into their own hands, the petitioner would well be within his rights to approach this Court to see that the rule of law is maintained. ( 4 ) IN State of Himachal Pradesh v. Students' Parent Medical College, AIR 1985 SC 910 , it was said that great care and circumspection should be taken to see that a public interest litigation does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution for the executive or the legislature. We do not think if the present approach to this Court by the petitioner has anything to do with the encroachment upon any of the entrenched right of the executive. We have said so because the executive cannot take upon itself the task of punishing the guilty. It is the function of the judicial wing of the State, and so, if the call of the Chief Minister to beat the corrupt officials after obtaining permission from him is really taken as such, we have no doubt that the Chief Minister transgressed his limits; and so, the action of the petitioner in seeking injunction upon the opposite parties cannot be regarded as encroachment on a sphere reserved by the Constitution for the executive. May we also state that beating is not one of the punishments recognised by law and as such the call to beat, even though given by the Chief Minister, would be without sanction of law, and, as such, the present cannot be said to be a case of an attempt to encroach upon the field rightfully reserved for the executive. ( 5 ) CHAITANYA Kumar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 825 , now the apex Court stating that in the name of public interest litigation, a petitioner should not be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations. Needless to say that the present is not a case of this nature. In Sachidananda Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 , the court felt the need of self-imposed restriction on public interest litigation because of the feeling that approach to higher courts without any rhyme or reason should be discouraged. The approach by the petitioner cannot be said to be without any rhyme or reason. In Sachidananda Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 , the court felt the need of self-imposed restriction on public interest litigation because of the feeling that approach to higher courts without any rhyme or reason should be discouraged. The approach by the petitioner cannot be said to be without any rhyme or reason. A grave threat to the rule of law and impairment of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art. 21 being involved in the call of the Chief Minister, we are of the view that the petitioner has come forward to uphold the basic structure of the Constitution and not for any personal gain or because of his grudge and enmity, approaches in which cases were disapproved in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598 ; Naginder Singh v. Punjab University, AIR 1990 Punj and Har 157; and P. Satyanarayana v. N. T. Rama Rao, AIR 1988 Andh Pra 144 (FB ). 5a. By referring to Bandhua Mukti Morcha ( AIR 1984 SC 802 ) and Subhash Kumar ( AIR 1991 SC 420 ) (supra), it is urged by the learned Advocate-General that public interest litigation should normally be entertained if the approach be on behalf of a group of persons who, on account of their poverty or disability, cannot move the court to enforce their fundamental rights. We do not, however, think if this proposition can be accepted in view of what has been stated in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 which is a landmark decision containing the views of the Apex Court on the subject of public interest litigation. We have said so because, as is known, in S. P. Gupta's case some lawyers had come forward challenging the validity of the circular issued by the Law Minister of India relating to the necessity of having one-third of the Judges of the High Court from outside the State in which the High Court is situated; so also making a grievance about non-extension of the term of an Additional Judge and transfer of one Chief Justice from one High Court to another. The approach was thus not on behalf of such persons who, for their poverty or disability, were unable to approach the court. Nonetheless, the approach was upheld because of the apparent nature of public interest involved in the litigation. The approach was thus not on behalf of such persons who, for their poverty or disability, were unable to approach the court. Nonetheless, the approach was upheld because of the apparent nature of public interest involved in the litigation. Similar is the case here. From what has been stated above and what is being stated later, we have no doubt in our mind that the petition par excellence involves a question of public interest. ( 6 ) IN this connection Shri Das has relied on what was stated by Krishna Iyer, J. in his concurring judgment in Fertilizer Corporation, Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 . In that judgment, there was a forceful plea as to why "law should not be a closed shop" and as to why the concept of locus standi must be liberalised. Among other reasons given for liberalisation, it was stated that law is a social auditor and this audit function can be put into action only when someone with real public interest ignites the jurisdiction. It was observed that in a society where freedom suffers from atrophy, activism is essential for public justice and some risks have to be taken and more opportunities open for the public-minded citizens to rely on legal process. It was also pointed out that law is not solely confined to protect personal interest in narrow sense. ( 7 ) BECAUSE of what is stated above, we are satisfied that the approach by the petitioner to this Court is to protect the rule of law and not for aggrandizement of any personal gain. A very pertinent question of great constitutional importance having been raised by the petitioner, his approach to this Court cannot be scuttled. It is immaterial for this purpose that the affected persons have not approached this Court as violation of constitutional protection enshrined in Art. 21 being writ large on the call of beating up of corrupt officials, injury to public interest and the rule of law is apparently involved, and so, the grievance has to be heard by a court established to uphold the fundamental rights and the rule of law. Let law and courts not be closed shops for those who are ignited by real public interest. ( 8 ) THIS takes us to the merit of the controversy. Let law and courts not be closed shops for those who are ignited by real public interest. ( 8 ) THIS takes us to the merit of the controversy. So far as this is concerned, learned Advocate-General contends that the call for beating up should not be taken literally, as all that the Chief Minister had desired was to instil a fear psychosis in the mind of the corrupt officials by making them known that the Government would not tolerate corruption and even the Chief Minister at his level would get these matters examined and, if any truth is found in the complaint, stern action shall be taken. The Chief Minister's call for beating was an emotional expression in indignation against the particular situation existing in the State wherein corruption was found to be rampant. The Chief Minister also wanted people's participation in eradicating corruption and exhorted them to be bold in this regard. The call wanted to bring home the point to the corrupt officials that corruption would no longer be tolerated and strong remedial and disciplinary measures would be taken in those cases where the allegations would be found established after investigation. ( 9 ) THAT the aforesaid was the purport and the basic idea behind the call of beating up given by the Chief Minister is sought to be brought home to us by the learned Advocate-General by referring to the speech made by the Chief Minister on the floor of the House on 14-3-91. The following is the English translation of the unedited Oriya speach made by the Chief Minister on the aforesaid date :- "it is impossible to manage these people. Therefore I have given it to the people. I am telling to the people, be conscious of your rights. Those who are committing theft and those who are committing decoity, beat these people. But before you beat them, you ask me and then beat them or else, if you beat them, cases will be instituted against you. Whatever you do, do it only after you ask me and after taking my permission. Whatever charges you have got against them, give it to me in writing and they have also done so. After they have given the charges, investigation has been made of the charges and action had been taken and more stern action would be taken. This I have expressed in the house. Whatever charges you have got against them, give it to me in writing and they have also done so. After they have given the charges, investigation has been made of the charges and action had been taken and more stern action would be taken. This I have expressed in the house. I have not given permission to anyone, I have not given permission to anyone, I have not given permission to anyone. (Interruptions ). Thereafter, the Chief Minister stated as below in English :-s"i have said only to put fearlessness in the minds of ordinary, oppressed and poor people and told that you have a right. You are a citizen of this country, you have a right to revolt against corruption, against injustice you have a right. Therefore, they revolt against corruptions, but bring it to my notice. Do not take law into your own hands. I have a squad of officers. They will investigate and punish. " ( 10 ) FROM the above, it is clear that the Chief Minister did not want the people to take law into their own hands. He also stated that after the charges were investigated and were found to be tenable, action had been taken and more stern action would be taken. As to the type of action taken, learned Advocate General stated that the Chief Minister had repeated thrice in the Assembly that he had not given permission to anybody to beat the erring officers. Indeed, the type of action taken was to draw up disciplinary proceeding, as would appear from what was stated in the newspaper cutting of "samaj" dated 18-2-91 enclosed with the writ petition. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid being brought to the notice of Shri Das appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel fairly states that if the statement of the Chief Minister is read down as indicated in his Assembly speech, the petitioner would be left with no grievance on this score, as corruption being rampant, a call to deal with the corrupt officials strictly and to create a fear psychosis in their minds cannot be said to be in any way violative of the rule of law. The procedure of getting the complaints examined by a special officer cannot also be said to be against the mandate of Art. 21 of the Constitution. The procedure of getting the complaints examined by a special officer cannot also be said to be against the mandate of Art. 21 of the Constitution. ( 12 ) ANOTHER grievance made by Shri Das was that the Chief Minister was creating new offences like maladministration, inefficiency which are nebulous in character; the effort being also violative of Art. 20 (1) of the Constitution inasmuch as there is no law describing maladministration or inefficiency as an offence for which a person can be punished. This part of the submission of Shri Das is also well taken care of by the aforesaid Assembly speech of the Chief Minister where he had spoken about committing theft and dacoity or of indulging in corruption, which are all known offences under the law of the land. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we dispose of the application by stating that though the petitioner had good reasons to approach this Court, yet in view of the stand taken by the learned Advocate-General on the merits of the grievance which finds support from the speech of the Chief Minister made in the Assembly on 14-3-1991, because of which Shri Das ultimately stated that there was not much left to feel aggrieved, no cause for issuing any injunction or direction survives. The storm has been well blown over. We part with the hope that such storm would not be seen again. ( 14 ) B. N. DASH, J. :- I agree. Petition dismissed.