Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 152 (GAU)

Premikanta Singh v. State of Manipur

2005-02-23

B.LAMARE, BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by a practicing Advocate in the form of public interest litigation (PIL) with the following prayers: It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships be pleased to: (i) issue a rule nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction should not be passed; (ii) to abolish the post of Director Family Wel-fare Services, Manipur, Additional Direcor-2 Nos; Joint Director-3-5 Nos. and Deputy Director SNOS as these 11 Nos. of posts have been posted beyond the norm so as to block diversion and missutillsation of programme money; (iii) to sanction the scale of pay prescribed in column 5 of the statement under letter dated 2.2.2000 (Annexure-A/12) to the Media Officers to stall diversion and misutilisation of public money; (iv) to direct for an enquiry by an independent body like Central Bureau of Investigation as to whether the posting of 11 Nos. of excess Gazetted Officers in Family Welfare Department, Manipur is permissible in the light of the instructions, policy decisions, staffing pattern etc. relating to Family Welfare Programme issued by the Government of India; AND (v) In the interim, pending disposal of the present case Family Welfare Department Manipur may be allowed to be run under the headship of Secretary/Commissioner in-charge of Family Welfare, Government of Manipur or to pass any appropriate order or orders which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the nature of the present case. 2. According to the Petitioner he has come to know during the course of his profession that the State Government has been misutilising the Central Fund and carrying out the centrally sponsored scheme at their whims and desire particularly in the State Family Welfare Department disregarding the mandatory guidelines as set out by the competent authority of the Government of India resulting into gross deprivation of valuable rights of under privileged women and children of the state apart from creating class legislation among the stuff who are the main power and responsible for the implementing of various such schemes. 3. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the family welfare programme has been launched as a national programme throughout the country including the State of Manipur and for the purpose the Government of India has prescribed a national stuffing pattern to be adopted by the states strictly in accordance with their classification made on the basis of the population of the states concerned. The State Government are allowed to create posts towards implementation of family welfare programme at various levels in accordance with the national stuffing pattern and that too with the prior approval/sanction from the Government of India. The entire fund/expenditure on family welfare programme in the State of Manipur is also made by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and family Welfare. The release of fund is strictly in accordance with the approved pattern and the stuff employed at various levels should invariably be as approved by the Government of India. As per the stuffing pattern, the Government of India allowed to establish a State Family welfare Bureau, which is now known as Family Welfare Department at the State Headquarter and District Family Welfare Bureau at different district headquarters and other programme centres at various levels in the State of Manipur. The Petitioner has further indicated the divisions involving the State Family welfare Department and the District Family Welfare Bureau. In support of such contentions, the Petitioner has annexed as many as 11 documents marked as Annexures-A/1 to A/11. 4. The aforesaid facts as narrated in the writ petition are available in paragraph 1 to 10 of the writ petition. After such narration of the facts on the basis of the aforesaid documents, the Petitioner has indicated his real grievance from paragraph 11 onwards in the writ petition. As per the averments made in paragraphs 11 to 16 of the writ petition, the Government of Manipur has allowed to exist 11 numbers of posts of different cadres as against only one permissible post of State family Planning Officer. The Petitioner has indicated the posts of gazetted officers created by the State of Manipur for the State Headquarter, which according to the Petitioner are on the basis of the sanctioned given by the Government of India. The Petitioner has indicated the posts of gazetted officers created by the State of Manipur for the State Headquarter, which according to the Petitioner are on the basis of the sanctioned given by the Government of India. It is the case of the Petitioner that although the Government of India did not approve and sanction the creation of the aforesaid 11 posts, but the Government of Manipur not only has created the said posts but also has been maintaining those posts in the Family Welfare Department. 5. Thus in a nutshell the grievance raised in the writ petition is that the aforesaid 11 posts are in excess of the approved norms and the State Government has been operating the said posts defying the norms fixed by the Central Government and incurring unnecessary expenditures in respect of those posts and in the process as indicated in the later part of the writ petition, some other officers of the Department have been deprived of the benefit of the revised pay scales. 6. While highlighting the above aspect of the matter, the Petitioner has stated in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the writ petition as to how the State of Manipur has been diverting the central fund meant for the scheme for the purpose of payment of salary and allowances to the incumbents holding the aforesaid 11 posts. However, in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it is the grievance of the Petitioner that the revised scales of pay for the posts mentioned in the paragraph have not been provided to the officers indicated by him inspect of the fund being provided by the Central Government. According to the Petitioner, the said officers have been deprived of the revised scales of pay due to the diversion of fund towards payment of salary and allowances to the incumbents holding the said 11 posts. In this connection the averments made by the Petitioner in the last part of paragraph 21 is quoted below: In short, Government of Manipur diverted the valuable programme money for meeting expenditure on salary and allowances of 11 (eleven) Gazetted Offices for whom Government of India did not provide fund whereas Government of Manipur refused to release the money which have been made available for meeting the expenses on salary and allowances for the above four categories of Officers in the scale of pay shown in column 3 above. Their money has also been diverted. Not only that, discrimination has been meted out to these group. 7. The Petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit annexing certain more documents, which according to the Petitioner are essential for a proper adjudication of the matter. Those documents are primarily to show the purported excess number of posts in the Family Welfare Department beyond the purview of the central scheme. 8. Although, the Respondents to the main writ petition have filed no counter affidavit, but they have filed two miscellaneous applications viz. Misc. Application No. 519/2003 and 170/2004 praying for vacating the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.10.2002. Both these miscellaneous applications have been pressed into service as the counter affidavit to the writ petition. The basic theme of defence of the State Respondent in those miscellaneous applications is that the writ petition is not maintainable, there being no specific plea of violation of any social norms and social justice in any manner. It is the specific case of the Respondents that the writ petition is tainted with some private interest more particularly to benefit the non-medical officers belonging to the Directorate of Family Welfare. 9. The Respondents have also highlighted as to how the omission of the Petitioner to implead the Director of Health Services and other concerned authorities has resulted in great prejudice to the establishment of the Director of Health Services and its senior members. They have justified the creation and continuation of the 11 numbers of posts in respect of which the Petitioner has raised the grievance in the form of the PIL. The Respondents have stated that the Medical Officers serving in the Directorate of Family Welfare are all cadre officers within the cadre strength and organized service of the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Manipur. In this connection they have pressed into service the Manipur Health Services Rules, 1982 indicating the authorized strength in Schedule-1 to the said Rule, which includes the aforesaid 11 posts. 10. We have heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ashok Potsongbam, learned Advocate General, State of Manipur assisted by Mr. S. Suresh, learned Advocate. We have also heard learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 5 Mr. N. Khoteswar Singh. We have also heard Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6. 11. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ashok Potsongbam, learned Advocate General, State of Manipur assisted by Mr. S. Suresh, learned Advocate. We have also heard learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 5 Mr. N. Khoteswar Singh. We have also heard Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6. 11. Mr. Paonam, in his long and elaborate arguments highlighted the facts narrated in the writ petition. He also referred to the application being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 27/2003 filed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India seeking modification of the interim order dated 31.10.2002. Be it stated here that the learned Single Judge by his interim order dated 31.10.2002 while issuing an interim direction to keep the posts indicated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition i.e. the aforesaid 11 posts as non-functional posts, also issued a direction to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to make enquiry into the matter in respect of the alleged diversion of fund as alleged by the writ Petitioner. The Division Bench entertaining the said application modified the said direction to the comptroller and Auditor General of India in view of the reports having already been furnished by the said authority to the Government of India and Manipur. 12. Mr. Paonam in support of his long and elaborate arguments being confronted with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General on the very maintainability of the PIL in the framework of the writ petition and the very locus-standi of the writ Petitioner, placed reliance on the following decisions. (1981) 1 SCC 568 (Fertilizer Corporation. Kamgar Union v. Union of India and Ors.) (1984) 3 SCC 161 (Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors.) (1986) 4 SCC 106 (Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of U.P. and Ors.) (1992) 4 SCC 305 (Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary and Ors.) 1998 (3) GLT 188 (Kipa Babu v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors.) 13. Mr. Ashok Potsngbam, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Manipur questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition in the form of PIL. In this regard he referred to Appendix-28 to the Gauhati High Court Rules dealing with the guidelines to be followed for entertaining PIL. Mr. Ashok Potsngbam, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Manipur questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition in the form of PIL. In this regard he referred to Appendix-28 to the Gauhati High Court Rules dealing with the guidelines to be followed for entertaining PIL. He submitted that the writ Petitioner in the form of PIL has really espoused the cause of the officers mentioned in the writ petition. Particularly referring to the prayers made in the writ petition, learned Advocate General submitted that on the face of such prayers it is rather a private interest litigation and not a public interest litigation in the garb of which the writ petition has been filed. He submitted that the basic theme of the so called PIL being in the domain of service matter, same is not maintainable and rather an abuse of the process of law. According to him the writ petition is not only liable to be dismissed but also exemplary costs is required to be imposed on the Petitioner. He placed reliance on the following decisions. (1984) 4 SCC 251 (Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors.) (1987) 2 SCC 295 (Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. and Ors.) (1993) 4 SCC 119 (R.K. Jain v. Union of India) (1998) 7 SCC 273 (Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kr. Mishra and Ors.) (2005) 1 SCC 590 (Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharastra and Ors.) 14. Mr. N. Koteswar Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 5 also highlighted the above arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General. He submitted that the Petitioner having not disclosed his credentials so as to espouse the cause of the women and children and having regard to the real theme in the writ petition in the form of PIL, the writ petition is not maintainable. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363 (Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors.) Mr. N Ibotombi Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 adopted the arguments made by the learned Advocate General and Mr. N. Koteswar Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 5. 15. We have considered the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials available on records. N Ibotombi Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 adopted the arguments made by the learned Advocate General and Mr. N. Koteswar Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 5. 15. We have considered the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials available on records. We have indicated above the basic facts and the theme indicated in the writ petition. On a total reading of the writ petition it will be seen that although the Petitioner has raised a grievance alleging diversion of central fund by the Government of Manipur in respect of the Family Welfare Department leading to deprivation of the women and children of the State, but such a grievance has ultimately culminated to the grievance of not providing the purported admissible revised scale of pay to the officers indicated in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. The real grievance of the Petitioner can be gathered from the above quoted prayers made in the writ petition. The writ petition although started with a concern for the downtrodden of the society, more particularly the women and the children, but such a concern has ultimately culminated to the concern for the officers indicated in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. It is in that context, the prayer for abolition of the 11 numbers of posts has also been made with a further prayer to cause an enquiry by an independent body like CBI as to whether the posting of the incumbents against the said 11 posts is permissible. The interim prayer made was to allow the department to be run under the headship of the Secretary/Commissioner in charge of the Department. 16. The Petitioner in the guise of espousing the cause of the women and the children of the State, although has made the foundation on the basis of the alleged diversion of fund, but on the face of it his primary concern is for abolition of the aforesaid 11 posts and to provide the revised scales of pay to the officers mentioned in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. It is not understood as to how the Petitioner could be concerned for payment of revised pay scales to the officers while purportedly espousing the cause of the downtrodden. It is also not understood as to how he could be concerned towards abolition of certain posts in the department concerned. It is not understood as to how the Petitioner could be concerned for payment of revised pay scales to the officers while purportedly espousing the cause of the downtrodden. It is also not understood as to how he could be concerned towards abolition of certain posts in the department concerned. If the Petitioner was really concerned with the alleged diversion of fund, apart from the requirement to establish his locus standi, he would not have made the prayers as have been made in the writ petition, which have been quoted above. 17. The Petitioner made the concern for the downtrodden as the foundation of the writ petition, but eventually, confined his concern only in respect of retention of the 11 posts by the Government of Manipur in the Department of Family Welfare and for providing the revised pay scales to the officers mentioned in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. It was none of the business of the Petitioner, a practicing advocate to be concerned with the retention of posts in the said department and the alleged deprivation of the admissible scale of pay to the officers of the department. If at all, anybody was aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the State Government in respect of abolition of the said posts and not providing the revised pay scales to the officers indicated in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, he cannot be the writ Petitioner, but he or they would be the officers of the department. The Petitioner does not hold the licence for the officers of the department so as to espouse their cause by filing a writ petition giving it a name in the form of PIL. 18. The Apendix-28 of the Gauhati High Court Rules on which the learned Advocate General placed reliance reads as follows: APPENDIX-28 Notification Dated 1.12.1988 Supreme Court of India Guidelines to be followed for entertaining letter/petitions received in this Court as public interest litigation. No petition involving individual/personal matter shall be entertained as a PIL matter except as indicated hereinafter. Letters/petitions falling under the following categories alone will originally be entertained as Public Interest Litigation: 1. Bonded Labour matters 2. Neglected children 3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases). 4. Letters/petitions falling under the following categories alone will originally be entertained as Public Interest Litigation: 1. Bonded Labour matters 2. Neglected children 3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases). 4. Petitions from Jails complaining of harassment, for premature release and seeking release after having completed 14 years in Jail, death in Jail, release on personal bond, speedy trial as a right. 5. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in police custody. 6. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc. 7. Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co-villagers or by police from persons belonging to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward classes. 8. Petitions pertaining to environment pollution, disturbances of ecological balance, drugs and food adulteration maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other matters of public importance 9. Petitions from plot victims 10. Family pension. All letter-petitions received in PIL cell will first be screened in the Cell and only such petitions as are covered by the above mentioned categories will be placed before a judge to be nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for directions after which the case will be listed before the bench concerned. To begin with only one Hon'ble Judge may be assigned this work and the member increased to two or three later depending on the workload. Cases falling under the following categories will not be entertained as public interest litigation and these may be returned to the Petitioners or filed in the PIL Cell. As the case may be: 1. Landlord-Tenant matters. 2. Service matter and those pertaining to pension and Gratuity. 3. Complaints against Central/State Government Deptts. and local Bodies except those relating to item Nos. (1) to (10) above. 4. Admission to medical and other educational institution. 5. Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts and Subordinate Courts. In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance of the wife, children and parents, the Petitioner may be asked to file petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure or a suit in the Court of competent Jurisdiction and for that purpose to approach the nearest legal Aid Committee for legal aid and advice. In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance of the wife, children and parents, the Petitioner may be asked to file petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure or a suit in the Court of competent Jurisdiction and for that purpose to approach the nearest legal Aid Committee for legal aid and advice. New Delhi December 1, 1988 (Note by Chief Justice) In the High Court, Registrar (Jud1.) may perform the function of the Cell Nomination of a Judge may or may not be made at the discretion of the Chief Justice. 19. During the course of argument, Mr. Paonam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner being confronted with the aforesaid guidelines and the pointed question as to under which clause of the guidelines the case of the Petitioner falls, although at the initial stage could not point out anything, but at the later stage of the hearing submitted that the case of the Petitioner falls under category-8 within the expression "and other matters of public importance". With this kind of projection of the case of the Petitioner, Mr. Paonam placed reliance on the aforementioned decisions. 20. During the course of argument, also being confronted with the fallacy of the basic theme of the writ petition, Mr. Paonam placed heavy reliance on the Civil Miscellaneous application No. 27/2003 filed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in which the reports of the Accountant General (Audit), Manipur were annexed. In the said reports some irregularities in respect of the fund allocated by the Central Government to the State Government have been indicated. In the reports certain measures were suggested including the intimation sent by the Government of India to the Accountant General (A and E), Manipur to adjust certain amounts against the Family Welfare Department. The reports themselves indicated the inbuilt provision in case of violation of any of the guidelines of the Central Government, which might even lead to deprivation of central fund. 21. Learned Advocate General for the State during the course of hearing, with documentary evidence relating to Government of India's sanction letters etc. submitted that the central fund has been regularly sanctioned to the State for the Family Welfare Department and such fund have been received for the years 2003 and 2004. Thus, it is really a matter between the Government of India and the Government of Manipur. submitted that the central fund has been regularly sanctioned to the State for the Family Welfare Department and such fund have been received for the years 2003 and 2004. Thus, it is really a matter between the Government of India and the Government of Manipur. Certain irregularities towards implementation of the Central Government funded schemes cannot be ruled out, but for that purpose, as per the revelation made in the reports, it is the Central Government to keep the checks and balance. However, for such purpose the Petitioner, a practicing advocate cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the form of PIL as has been done in the instant case. The real beneficiaries of the scheme have not made any grievance. 22. It is in the above backdrop and reminding ourselves to the well-known principle that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it (See. Lords Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathen 1901 AC 495 ), we now proceed to deal with the decisions cited by Mr. Paonam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 23. The case of Fertilizer Corpn. (supra) has been pressed into service to highlight the wide scope and ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 37 of the judgment the Apex Court emphasized that the rule of law must win the aggrieved person for the law Court and wean him from the lawless street. It was also emphasized that the principle underlying "Ubijus ibi remedium " must be enlarged to embrace all interests of public minded citizens or organizations with serious concern for conservation of public resources and the direction and correction of public power so as to promote justice in its triune facets. The Apex Court further observed in paragraph 43 of the judgment that PIL is a part of the Process of participate justice and "standing" in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial door steps. 24. There is no quarrel with such propositions laid down by the Apex Court. That was a case in which a worker, who, clearly had an interest in the industry in question, brought the action regarding an alleged wrongdoing by the Board of Management. 24. There is no quarrel with such propositions laid down by the Apex Court. That was a case in which a worker, who, clearly had an interest in the industry in question, brought the action regarding an alleged wrongdoing by the Board of Management. Same is not the case in hand as already indicated above. It need not be emphasized that mere quoting of some paragraphs of the Apex Court decisions without highlighting anything about the facts of the case and as to the applicability of those facts to the facts of the case to which the decision is pressed into service is not a sound approach. 25. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra), the Apex Court rejected the arguments raised on behalf of the Respondents that even if what was alleged by the Petitioner in the letter which had been treated as a writ petition was true, it could not support a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, because no fundamental right of the Petitioner or of the workmen on whose behalf the writ petition had been filed, could be said to have been infringed. That was a case in which large numbers of workers were subjected to exploitation as bonded labourers and the right of the Petitioners was duly established, unlike the present case in which the Petitioner, a practicing advocate has espouse the cause of few officers in the garb of espousing the cause of the women and the children of the State. 26. In the case of Dr. Upendra Baxi, the Apex Court held that public interest litigation is not a litigation of an adversary character undertaken for the purpose of holding the State Government or its officers for making reparation and that this kind of litigation involves a collaborative and co-operative efforts on the part of the State Government and its officers, the lawyers appearing in the case and the Bench for the purpose of making human rights meaningful for the weaker sections of the community. That was a case relating to shifting of the protective Home from one locality to another. Certain interim orders were passed. The State Government was requested to evolve a scheme for rehabilitation of girls lodged in the protective homes. State action in the matter was deprecated by the Apex Court while emphasizing the need for suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls. Certain interim orders were passed. The State Government was requested to evolve a scheme for rehabilitation of girls lodged in the protective homes. State action in the matter was deprecated by the Apex Court while emphasizing the need for suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls. We have failed to understand as to how this case can render any assistance to the case of the Petitioner. While agreeing with the concern express by the Apex Court in the given circumstances of the case, we find no such concern on the part of the Petitioner for the downtrodden in the name of whom he has espoused the cause of a few officers of the department. 27. Similar views has been expressed in respect of the principles involved in the matter relating to PIL, in the other two cases cited by Mr. Paonam i.e. Janata Dal and Kipa Babu (Supra). In the case of Janata Dal, the Apex Court discussed about the meaning and relevance of public interest litigation and the wider scope in defining the rule of locus-standi in PIL compared to private litigation. In the case of Kipa Babu, there was disagreement between the learned judges constituting the Division Bench, one rejecting the PEL and the other accepting the same. That was a case filed by a students' union which claimed to be working for the welfare of the students community and for the welfare of the people in general of Arunachal Pradesh and prayed for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto, mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to disclose their known source of income alongwith the assets and liabilities within and outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh. In the instant case, there is not even semblance of such a cause of action and disclosure of credentials of the Petitioner. 28. We now proceed to deal with the cases on which the learned Advocate General placed reliance. The case of Prabodh Verma (supra) has been pressed into service to buttress the argument even leaving aside the question of maintainability of the writ petition for want of locus-standi and cause of action and also on merit, the writ petition is hit by the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties. The case of Prabodh Verma (supra) has been pressed into service to buttress the argument even leaving aside the question of maintainability of the writ petition for want of locus-standi and cause of action and also on merit, the writ petition is hit by the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties. Although the Petitioner prayed for interference with the 11 posts in the department even to the extent of causing a CBI enquiry to find out the necessity or otherwise of the continuation of the incumbents holding the posts but the persons holding the posts have not been arrayed as party Respondents. The Apex Court in the said case of Prabodh Verma dealing with the fatal defect of non-joinder of necessary party held that the High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as Respondents or atleast by some of them being before it as Respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large. In the instant case, the Petitioner has sought for discontinuation of the 11 posts without making the incumbents holding the said posts party Respondents in this proceeding. Thus, although the said incumbents were necessary parties, they having not been arrayed as party Respondents, on this score also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 29. In the case of Sachidanand Pandey (supra), the Apex Court emphasized the need for restrain on the part of the public interest litigants when they move the Court. In the said case the Apex Court noticed that it poses a threat to Court and public alike and that such cases are now filed without rhyme or reason. The need to restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of PDL has been emphasized, lest the traditional litigation suffers and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. In paragraph 61 of the judgment the Apex Court observed as follows: 61. The need to restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of PDL has been emphasized, lest the traditional litigation suffers and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. In paragraph 61 of the judgment the Apex Court observed as follows: 61. It is only when Courts arc apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the Court, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardship and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to one in extending help when such help is required. But his does not mean that the doors of mis Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restrain on public interest litigants. 30. In the case of R.K. Jain (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the question of locus-sandi and "person aggrieved" approaching the Court, held that the third party has no locus-standi to canvas the legality or correctness of the action. In paragraph 74 of the judgment the following observation has been made. 74. Shri Harish Chander, admittedly was the Senior Vice-President at the relevant time. The contention of Shri Thakur of the need to evaluate the comparative merits of Mr. Harish Chander and Mr. Kalyansundaram a seniormost member for appointment as President would not be gone into in a public interest litigation. Only in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person it may be open to be considered. This writ petition is also not a writ of quo warranto. In service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person i.e. non-appointee to assail the legality of the offending action. Third party has no locus standi to canvas the legality or correctness of the action. Only public law declaration would be made at the behest of the Petitioner, a public-spirited person. 31. In the case of Dr. Third party has no locus standi to canvas the legality or correctness of the action. Only public law declaration would be made at the behest of the Petitioner, a public-spirited person. 31. In the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the question of maintainability of PIL preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal and "person aggrieved", held that the Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 cannot entertain a PIL at the instance of a total stranger. Referring to the provisions of the Act and the reference made in the provisions to "person aggrieved", the Apex Court held that in order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This decision has been pressed into service to bring home the point of argument that the Petitioner is not an aggrieved person. It was further held in that case that in service maters PI Ls should not be entertained. 32. In the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra), the Apex Court, as in the instant case, death with a PIL filed by the Appellant Petitioner, a lawyer. Pointing out the meaning of the expression "public interest litigation", the Apex Court held that 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. We are tempted to quote the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the said decision. 1. This case is a sad reflection on members of the legal profession and is almost a black spot on the noble profession. The Petitioner who belongs to this profession filed a petition styled as "public interest litigation" before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed it holding that there was no public interest involved and in fact the Petitioner had resorted to blackmailing Respondents 6 and 7 and was caught red-handed accepting "lackmailing" money. The High Court also noticed that the allegations of unauthroized constructions made in the petition were also not true. 2. Costs of Rs. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed it holding that there was no public interest involved and in fact the Petitioner had resorted to blackmailing Respondents 6 and 7 and was caught red-handed accepting "lackmailing" money. The High Court also noticed that the allegations of unauthroized constructions made in the petition were also not true. 2. Costs of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which was levied, was directed to be paid to the affected Respondents 6 and 7 before the High Court. 3. It is, in fact, a black day for the black-robed professionals, if the allegations, as found by the High Court to be true and which presently appear to be the subject-matter of further proceedings in a criminal case, are true. This will leave the members of the legal profession black-faced for the black deed of the Petitioner who may be as the High Court found a black sheep in the profession. Though the petition filed by the Petitioner carried the attractive branch name of "public interest litigation", the least than can be said is that it smacks of everything what a public interest litigation should not be. 4. 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 to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the last category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and weak vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI. A writ Petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ Petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. 33. In the decision on which learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 and 5 Mr. Koteswar placed reliance i.e., Dr. B. Singh (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the PIL relating to appointment of High Court judges made the following observations in paragraph 14 and 15 of the judgment. 14. The Court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interest: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It 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 any 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. 15. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters any 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. 15. 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 Maharastra v. Prabhu and A.P. State Financial Corporation. v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills). 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 license to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran) Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. Self-styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst of public at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep themselves busy and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of Court proceedings. They must really inspire confidence in Courts and among the public, failing which such litigation should be axed with a heavy hand and decree consequences. 34. We may also gainfully refer to the decisions of this Court as reported in 2002 (3) GLT 99 (Jugal Baruah v. Union of India and Ors.); 1999 (2) GLT 461 (Prantosh Roy v. State of Assam and Ors.) and 2004 (2) GLT 403 (Wallamphang Roy v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.). In all the said decisions, this Court extensively dealt with the principles involved in PIL, its extent and limit, ambit and scope. In the case of Prantosh Roy (supra), this Court dealt with the guidelines relating to PIL and emphasized on the purpose for it. In that proceeding it was found that adequate Court fee was paid and the averments made in the petition were supported by an affidavit and thus under the circumstances issued direction to the Registry to entertain the writ petition. In that proceeding it was found that adequate Court fee was paid and the averments made in the petition were supported by an affidavit and thus under the circumstances issued direction to the Registry to entertain the writ petition. In that case, the Registry of the High Court in the PIL cell refused to entertain the petition filed by the Petitioner. It was noticed that the case was covered under the guidelines of the PIL. In the case of Wallamphang Roy (supra), this Court referring to the various earlier decisions found that the Petitioner therein had no legal right to move the Court challenging the economic policy of the Government. It was noticed that the Petitioner therein had no locus-standi to file the writ petition in the form of PIL as no injury, either legal or public was suffered by the Petitioner. 35. In the instant case apart from nondisclosure of the credentials and credibility of the Petitioner, nothing has been stated as to how the Petitioner, a practicing advocate has been provided with the task of legal representation of the unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts can only be undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketable for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others. The Petitioner does not come within the purview of anyone of the above groups. He has no locus-standi to espouse the cause of the officers whom he feels have been deprived of the revised scales of pay. It is none of his business as to whether certain posts in the department should be retained or abolished. 36. The vagueness of the claim of the Petitioner is amply demonstrated from the prayer made in the writ petition one of which is for a direction to cause an enquiry through CBI as to whether the posting of 11 numbers of excess gazetted officers in the Family Welfare Department, Manipur was permissible or not. Thus the Petitioner himself is not sure about the permissibility or otherwise of manning those posts and seeks CBI enquiry relating to the same. This is the kind of PIL of which the Petitioner, a practicing advocate is the projector. 37. Thus the Petitioner himself is not sure about the permissibility or otherwise of manning those posts and seeks CBI enquiry relating to the same. This is the kind of PIL of which the Petitioner, a practicing advocate is the projector. 37. Time and again the Apex Court has emphasized the need for self-imposed restrains towards the uprising of resort to PIL in the slightest pretext. A person acting bonafide having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus-standi and can approach the Court agitating violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. As has been emphasized by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Dattaraj Nathuji, a public interest litigant must come to the Court not only with clean hands like any other writ Petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affair settled in the manner as he wishes. As emphasized in the case of B. Singh (supra), easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. 38. In the instant case, although the Petitioner has not disclosed his credential and credibility and as to how he could espouse the cause of the women and children of the State, proceeded in the writ petition with a sound note of concern alleging diversion of fund for the purposes other than the one for which the Central Government has provided the fund. However, eventually he has ended up with the above quoted prayers espousing the cause of the officers as mentioned in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. He has gone to the extent of seeking abolition of the 11 numbers of posts in the department. Thus really speaking, it could very well be a service matter, which can only be espoused by the "aggrieved person" which the Petitioner is certainly not. He does not fulfill any of the ingredients so as to blend him to be a public spirited man authorizing him to file the writ petition in the form of a PEL. Thus really speaking, it could very well be a service matter, which can only be espoused by the "aggrieved person" which the Petitioner is certainly not. He does not fulfill any of the ingredients so as to blend him to be a public spirited man authorizing him to file the writ petition in the form of a PEL. This is precisely the reason why the Apex Court has given different meaningful names to the easy access to the Court applying the terminology PIL. 39. In the affidavit sworn by the Petitioner in support of the averments made in the writ petition, the Petitioner has simply stated that the statements made in the writ petition are all true and correct to the best of his knowledge and information without even disclosing as to how the official documents on which he his placed reliance could be collected by him and as to how the informations derived therefrom could be based on his personal knowledge. In Chapter-IV of the Gauhati High Court Rules, dealing with the general rules for application and affidavits, the manner and method of swearing an affidavit has been laid down. Rule 27 of the rules lays down as to how a particular statement or fact is to be verified. In the instant case even that requirement has not been fulfilled and/or carried out by the Petitioner, who projects himself to be a public interest litigant. 40. The PIL also does not come within the purview of the guidelines as laid down in Appendix 28 of the Gauhati High Court Rules, although a faint submission was made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the present writ petition comes within the purview of "other matters of public importance" as indicated in Clause-8 of the guidelines. Entire guidelines have been quoted above. The expression "other matters of public importance" which finds place in Clause-8 cannot be read in isolation, but will have to be understood in the context in which the same has been used. Clause-8 provides for petitions pertaining to environment pollution, disturbances of ecological balance, drugs and food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forests and wild life and other matters of public importance (emphasis supplied). Clause-8 provides for petitions pertaining to environment pollution, disturbances of ecological balance, drugs and food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forests and wild life and other matters of public importance (emphasis supplied). The said expression will have to be understood and applied in that context only and cannot be used as a tool so as to embrace even a private interest litigation taking into its fold all pervasiveness even to include the cause of the officers as indicated in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. 41. For the foregoing reason we are of the firm opinion that the present writ petition filed in the garb of PIL is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes and thus is not maintainable. Accordingly the writ petitions stands dismissed awarding a cost of Rs. 2500/- to be realized from the Petitioner by the High Court Registry as per the provisions of the Gauhati High Court Rules. 42. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order passed on 30.12.2002 stands automatically vacated. 43. Writ petition stands dismissed.