Honble AGARWAL, CJ. — This public interest litigation relates to functioning of the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and other Government hospitals. The petitioner has made serious allegations against its functioning including that patients have died in the hospital because of wrong diagnosis and carelessness. In paragraphs 1 to 20 of the writ petition, instances have been cited mentioning different cases in which either the patients died or were incapacitated because of negligence of the doctors. The petitioner also alleged that the wife of Honble Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court died due to not giving of a proper treatment at the proper time. Many other irregularities, alleged were relating to purchase of machines by the S.M.S. Hospital for the personal gain of doctors. The petitioner also alleged that patients used to be recommended for getting pathological test done by the Diagnostic Laboratories situated in the neighbourhood instead of rendering services by the doctors themselves in the S.M.S. Hospital where all facilities for the said purpose were available. The doctors used to advise the patients to get their urine and blood test conducted outside so that they could get commission from the private clinics. (2). The "Division Bench consisting of Honble Mr. Justice M.B. Sharma and Honble Mr. Justice I.S. Israni appointed a Commission to enquire into the truth of the allegations made in the writ petition. The Bench directed : — "We are also of the opinion that to inquire into the truth or otherwise of the allegations that some diagnostic laboratories near or around the SMS Hospital, Jaipur or in Jaipur city are run by proxy on behalf of the Profes-sors/doctors in the government run hospitals, the enquiry should be made by person/persons to be nominated by the Chief Income-tax Commissioner Rajasthan Jaipur. The said person or persons shall also inquire whether any commissions on the cases referred for investigation to the various diagnostic laboratories is paid to the doctors who make the aforesaid reference, and if so what is the per centage thereof. We therefore, direct the Chief Income-tax Commissioner Rajasthan, Jaipur to appoint person/persons not below the rank of Income Tax Officers to make the aforesaid inquiry or investigations and to submit the report to this Court within a period of three months. We therefore, direct the Chief Income-tax Commissioner Rajasthan, Jaipur to appoint person/persons not below the rank of Income Tax Officers to make the aforesaid inquiry or investigations and to submit the report to this Court within a period of three months. A copy of this order be immediately sent to the above named persons including, C.I.T.C. The case may be listed for such further directions as may be deemed necessary after the receipt of the reports as aforesaid." The Bench appointed a Committee consisting of — 1. Dr. R.M. Kasliwal, Formerly Principal of S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. 2. Dr. M.L. Gupta, Retired Principal, Medical College, Udaipur. 3. Shri S.R. Bajwa, Advocate. (3). The Committee sought clarifications from the Bench by moving the application. The clarification was given by the Bench on 20.6.1989. They directed the State Government, Superintendent, State Motor Garage, Jaipur to provide the conveyance facility to Sh. R. M. Kasliwal and Sh. M.L. Gupta as and when they so require only to the extent of going from their resident to the hospitals and back. (4). The Commission submitted its report to the Court on 16.5.1990. (5). Sh. R.M. Lodha, thereafter, put in appearance on behalf of Dr. S.R. Mehta for permitting him in the case as intervener. The application was opposed by the petitioner, which was ultimately allowed on 31.7.1991 by Honble Mr. Justice I.S. Israni ordering that he would be heard as intervener since Dr. S.R. Mehtas name had appeared in the report. (6). On 4.2.1991, the Court found that only a part of the report had been submitted by the Committee and, therefore, for enabling the parties to suggest the name of the doctor which could be agreed upon, time was given by the Court. Thereafter, several hearings took place, but the name of the doctor was not suggested. (7). To me, it appears that the State Government had appointed a Beri Commission for reports on several matters which are as follows :— 1) Polygraph Machine 2) Radiodiagnosis Department. 3) Purchase of Camma Camera for Nuclear Medicine Division. 4) Purchase and installation of Gamma Sample Changer. 5) Case of replacement of source in Cobalt Teletheraphy unit. 6) Case of Nova-I Sodium/Potasium Analyser of Biohemistry (O.P.D.) Laboratory. (8). The Beri Commission appointed by the State Government consisting of- 1) Justice B.P. Beri (Chairman) 2) Mangal Bihari, I.A.S. (Retd.) 3) A.S. Kapoor, Chairman I.G.N.P. (Retd.). (9). 4) Purchase and installation of Gamma Sample Changer. 5) Case of replacement of source in Cobalt Teletheraphy unit. 6) Case of Nova-I Sodium/Potasium Analyser of Biohemistry (O.P.D.) Laboratory. (8). The Beri Commission appointed by the State Government consisting of- 1) Justice B.P. Beri (Chairman) 2) Mangal Bihari, I.A.S. (Retd.) 3) A.S. Kapoor, Chairman I.G.N.P. (Retd.). (9). The Beri Commission went into the various matters for which its reports had been invited in detail and submitted its report on those aspects covering the whole controversy raised in this writ petition. The Beri Commissions recommendations made to the State Government pertaining to the case of Polygraph Machine are reproduced below: — "Recommendations: We make the following recommendations: (i) Departmental Disciplinary proceedings be initiated against personnel responsible for preparation of incorrect and misleading comparative statements, by adopting incorrect rates of conversion of foreign currency and unfairly loading the price bid of one of the tenderers with the cost of spare parts and of another with the price of Camera, as explained in detail under paragraph 13 of this report and thereby causing award of order at a high price to the tenderer, who was not the lowest and at the same time causing loss of Rs. 3.51 lac to the Government. (ii) The outstanding payment of Rs. 2,67,000/- for installation charges may not be made to M/s Medical Coordinators. Attempt be made to arrive at a compromise with them for foregoing this chum. And on their doing so, the Government claim on liquidated damages can be given up. (iii) Purchase of important and costly equipments like this should be better organised, processed and supervised, consumables, spares etc. should be more efficiently identified and their supply ensure in time at reasonable rates by the supplier, if possible, backed by a bank guarantee. (iv) Installation charges, commission for Indian agents etc. should be more thoroughly checked and scrutinized in purchases like these to avoid malpractices, corruption or exploitation of the Government. (v) Government should scrutinise such purchases more carefully in the Secretariat so that such blunders, as are pointed in para 13 of this report, do not go un-noticed." (10). The recommendations made by the Beri Commission in its report pertaining to the case of replacement of source in Cobalt Teletheraphy Unit are reproduced below:- "Recommendations. 12. We recommend no action against any one in this case. 13. The recommendations made by the Beri Commission in its report pertaining to the case of replacement of source in Cobalt Teletheraphy Unit are reproduced below:- "Recommendations. 12. We recommend no action against any one in this case. 13. It needs to be reviewed whether any usable parts or components of the old Cobalt Machine, which is now to be discarded, can be gainfully put to alternative use or disposed off. 14. Timely replacement of such essential equipment is very necessary. Situation should not be allowed to come to such a pass that avoidable unproductive expenditure has to be incurred to revive an obsolete equipment. (11). These reports are with the State Government for taking such actios as it thinks appropriate. (12). During the period when these reports were being investigated and facts gathered, Medical Council of India had an occasion to inspect the working of the S.M.S. Hospital. It submitted its report in July, 1989. For most of the things, the report found the working of the S.M.S. Hospital to be in order. (13). Dr. S.R. Mehta, has refuted the contention of the petitioner of mismanagement and carelessness during the period when he was Head of the Department. Mr. R.M. Lodha, learned counsel appearing for him submitted that a public interest litigation is not meant for vindication of private rights or feelings which the petitioner may have against the persons incharge. Reliance was placed by him on various decisions of the Supreme Court. One of them was in Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (1). In this case, while dealing with the scope of law of Public Interest Litigation under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has held: — "Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation." (14). Mr. R.C. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the present was a fit case for being treated as a public interest litigation, inasmuch as, the writ petition was disposed of on 2.6.1989. This Court cannot now go into the said controversy. This submission of the petitioners counsel appears to be correct. The controversy aforesaid was finished when the writ petition was disposed of by giving directions. (15). In the writ petition, the prayer made was for appointment of a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. This Court cannot now go into the said controversy. This submission of the petitioners counsel appears to be correct. The controversy aforesaid was finished when the writ petition was disposed of by giving directions. (15). In the writ petition, the prayer made was for appointment of a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Court in order to find-out truth in the management or running of the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, appointed a Committee and gave certain directions to it to submit its report. Such a report was rightly thought to be in public interest as thousands of people are involved in the proper running of the hospital. The view taken by the court was that unless a person has a locus standi to seek a relief, he cannot bring a litigation. (16). The Supreme Court enlarged the concept of locus standi. Ordinarily only the person whose rights are violated can move the Supreme Court. But, for public interest litigation this rule would not be adequate. Hence, the Court laid down, "Any person may move the Court for judicial redress where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right. But the individual who moves the Court for judicial redress in cases of this kind, must act bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice. See S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (2). (17). Lord Denning also laid down liberal interpretation of locus standi. He observed in R.V. Commr. of Police, Metropolitan E.P. Luckurn (3): — "If there is a good ground for supposing that a government department or a public authority is transgressing the law or is about to transgress, in a way which offends or injures thousands of Her Majestys subjects, then in the last resort any of the offended or the injured can draw it to the attention, of the Court of law and seek to have the law enforced." (18). In order to bring justice within the reach of the poor, the Supreme Court laid down the strategy of public interest litigation. It has been emphasized time and again that under the public interest litigation a private dispute cannot be fought out. In order to bring justice within the reach of the poor, the Supreme Court laid down the strategy of public interest litigation. It has been emphasized time and again that under the public interest litigation a private dispute cannot be fought out. It is true and undeniable that public interest litigation is brought before the Court not for the purpose of enforcing the right, of one individual against another. It should demand remedy against the violation of constitutional or legal rights of a large number of people who were poor, ignorant or in a socially and economically disadvantageous position. The scope of public interest litigation has been discussed in several cases of the Supreme Court. Amongst those, some of them are in Petition of Nawal Thakur, Re, (2) (4), Ramkumar Misra vs. State of Bihar (5), P. Nalla Thampy Thera vs. Union of India (6), Forward Construction Corpn. vs. Prabhat Mandal (7), Mathew vs. State of Bihar (8) and Sheela Barse vs. Union of India (9). (19). In Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (10), the Supreme Court appointed Commissions and Committee to inquire into the matter before it and directed to submit a report after inquiry. The Court also took similar steps for appointment of commissions in other cases, the details of which are not necessary to be mentioned. (20). In the instant case, the learned Judges appointed a Commission as was claimed for the purpose of finding out the truth about the working of the S.M.S. Hospital and it submitted its report to the Court. Thereafter, a Beri Commission was appointed by the State Government and it gone into the various matters arose in this writ petition and submitted its report to the State Government. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, nothing further could be desired from the Court to do. (21). Remedial action in public interest litigation must be within limits as said by the Supreme Court in State of H.P. vs. Umed Ram Sharma (11). (22). On the facts and circumstances of the present case, nothing further could be desired from the Court to do. (21). Remedial action in public interest litigation must be within limits as said by the Supreme Court in State of H.P. vs. Umed Ram Sharma (11). (22). In State of H.P. vs. Students of Medical College (12) it has been held by the Supreme Court:- "Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with eat care and circumspection and the judiciary 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." (23). In the United States of America also the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. gave some judgments with the result that there was criticism that America has a government of Judges. This Court has to guard itself from that criticism. (24). Public interest litigation as an instrument for the administration of justice must be used property in proper cases. It does not mean settling disputes between individual parties. (25). In Public Interest Law edited by Jeremy Cooper and Rajeev Dhavan at page 58 about the jurisdiction of the Court what was said was: — "Moreover, the judiciary have fairly limited powers at common law to extend the areas of public interest generally and in legal proceedings in particular. The responsibility for such extension and expansion has become a matter of political argument and debate and has fatten on the legislative branch of government, so that what social, economic, financial or other activities should be regarded as coming within the parameters of the public interest, and if so to what extent and the method of their regulation, are largely matters that have to be enacted by Parliament and statutory instruments." (26). The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that some of the doctors had been found guilty of recommending the cases of the hospital to the Diagnostic Laboratories near or around the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and that it has been found by the Income Tax Department on enquiry that some of the doctors were getting commission from those Diagnostic Laboratories and, as such, they are liable to be proceeded with under the Income Tax Act for recovery of tax on the income derived by them from the Diagnostic Laboratories. The learned counsel urged that the Chief Income-tax Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur be directed to assess those doctors for illegal income made by them by getting commission. (27). If there is a provision under the Income-Tax Act, the Income Tax Department may recover the government dues by taking proceedings against those doctors who indulged in the aforesaid activities. The Income Tax Department does not need any direction from this Court for the said purpose. The Income Tax Act provides wholesome procedure of filing appeals, revisions or references to the aggrieved persons. The public interest litigation cannot be converted into giving of a direction to the Income Tax Department to assess the doctors. (28). The next aspect pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that some of the doctors had been found by the Committee of Commissioner having indulged in illegal acts and that has rendered them liable to prosecution. The acts alleged to have been committed by those doctors resulted in the deaths of patients and rendering them incapacitated due to wrong diagnosis. (29). It has been accepted that a medical practitioner owes a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in the treatment of a patient. In Gladwell vs. Steggall (13), the plaintiff, a 10 years old girl, complained of a pain in her knee. Her father summoned the doctor. His treatment had disastrous consequences. Tindal CJ. ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed despite the absence of any contract between them : — "The declaration is not framed as in an action on a contract, by alleges a breach of duty arising out of the employment of the defendant by the plaintiff.....this is an action ex delicto." (30). Where a claim is brought for the tort, damage is a necessary element of the cause for action. If, therefore, the plaintiff shows that the doctor was negligent, but fails to prove that any loss or injury was caused thereby, then he will not even be entitled to damage and his claim will be dismissed. (31). A petition under the garb of public interest litigation, but in fact in personal interest or to satisfy any grudge or enmity cannot be entertained. (32). (31). A petition under the garb of public interest litigation, but in fact in personal interest or to satisfy any grudge or enmity cannot be entertained. (32). In my view, nothing further is required to be done as the reports having already been given by the Committee of Commissioners and by the Beri Commission to the State Government on various aspects which arose in this writ petition. The petitioner high- lighted many loopholes in the administration of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur for which reports have already come. The Court cannot take any action in pursuance of the reports itself. It is for the Government to take appropriate action in pursuance of the same. (33). For the reasons given above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.