Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 264 (PAT)

Mahesh Yadav v. Sardar Patel Memorial College

2003-03-05

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2003
Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29 October, 2002 on C.W.J.C. No. 3999 of 2002: Sardar Patel Memorial College V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2. The person filing the appeal was not a party to the cause but an intervenor. The name of the intervenor 1 is Mahesh Yadav son of Dhaneshwar Yadav. This aspect is relevant. He was represented by counsel one Anil Chandra and Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Mishra. Both had signed the Vakaiatnama on the interveners application. 3. The college sought protection because it was facing perhaps a law and order situation from the police authorities for protection of a track of land which has been leased to it in 1978 formally by the State of Bihar. It even made a deposit of an amount which is required for paying the cost of providing protection. Strangely the State returned the amount. More strange is the defence of the State on record noticed by the learned Judge that the State will not be able to provide protection. This certificate by the learned Judge noticing the situation itself is a cause for concern that a citizen has sought for protection and the State will not provide for it. 4. This intervenor now comes into the picture. Apparently in the writ petition sufficient interest has been shown by the intervenor to meddle with the affairs of the college on the lease which was granted by the State of Bihar itself. Finding that he would not be successful in the writ petition, a Public Interest Litigation was filed at the High Court (C.W.J.C. No. 2229 of 2003). Looking at the array of parties the complete picture is not discernible. The array of parties is Sri Baba Mani Ram Das Ji Akhara Nyas Samiti vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. The affidavit to the Public Interest Litigation has been affirmed by one Mahesh Yadav son of Dhaneswar Yadav. Now the picture becomes clear. This Mahesh Yadav is no other than the intervenor in the writ petition. 5. Clearly the process of the court was being abused by the person who brought the Public Interest Litigation as this very Mahesh Yadav who was an intervenor in the writ petition and could not succeed readily filed another petition as Public Interest Litigation. 6. This Mahesh Yadav is no other than the intervenor in the writ petition. 5. Clearly the process of the court was being abused by the person who brought the Public Interest Litigation as this very Mahesh Yadav who was an intervenor in the writ petition and could not succeed readily filed another petition as Public Interest Litigation. 6. Clearly, the attempt of this intervenor has been to dislodge the college from the land which had been leased to it by the State of Bihar. Playing games with the process of the Court can turn out to be a dangerous game. This may also be criminal contempt. 7. The petitioner who filed the Public Interest Litigation calling itself a public trust as Sri Bhagwan Ram Das Ji Samiti and/or the deponent affirming the PIL one Mahesh Yadav son of DhaneshwarYadav otherwise an intervenor in writ petition shall deposit special costs of Rs. 2,500/- with the Bihar State Legal Services Authority within a fortnight from today failing which the Registrar General will ensure that no cause by these litigants will be accepted at the High Court. Hereinafter counsel be cautioned not to duplicate proceedings nor suppress facts from the Court nor mislead the High Court to issue a notice of motion especially on causes brought as Public Interest Litigation when the same subject matter may be pending for consideration of the Court in other divisions of the Court. 8. This Court finds nothing incorrect in the order recorded on the writ petition. 9. The appeal is dismissed.