Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2960 (RAJ)

Jagran Upbhokta Seva Samiti v. State of Rajasthan

2005-11-11

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA, Y.R.MEENA

body2005
Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-That by the instant writ petition the petitioner Jagran Upbhokta Seva Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the (Samiti) prayed the following reliefs:-“(i) to quash and set-aside such unreasonable and arbitrary criterion like Clauses (a), (b), (e), (g) and (h) from the impugned tender notice (Schedule-A); (ii) to direct the respondents to withdraw the aforesaid tender notice and publish a fresh tender notice after removing such unreasonable criterion mentioned above like Clauses (a), (b), (e),(g) and (h); (c) toallow all the competent confident and able bidders to participate in the tender proceedings and not to have prohibitory criteria; (d) to say the operation of this tender notice and all the consequential steps thereof pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition; (e) to grant ad-interim and interim order in the nature of prayer Clause (d) above; (f) to order for costs of this petition; (g) to pass such other and further order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper; (h) anyother order this Honble Court may deem proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The said reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner by challenging the criterion of tender to be arbitrary and unreasonable, more particularly certain clauses of the tender notice according to which only those dealers who have supplied coal to the State Government will be eligible to submit tenders. 3. Notices were issued to the respondents and Mr. Bharat Vyas learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Manish Bhandari put appearance on behalf of them and raised preliminary objections. The submission of Mr. Vyas is that this writ petition in the form of public interest litigation is not maintainable as the same has been filed by the petitioner samiti without producing the registration certificate. Further, in Para Nos. 1 to 4 of the writ petition the petitioner has submitted that he is a practicing Advocate, whereas the title and affidavit is of President of samiti. Otherwise also the question of PIL by an Advocate does not arise at all as his name and designation is neither mentioned in title nor in affidavit. The further submission of Mr. 1 to 4 of the writ petition the petitioner has submitted that he is a practicing Advocate, whereas the title and affidavit is of President of samiti. Otherwise also the question of PIL by an Advocate does not arise at all as his name and designation is neither mentioned in title nor in affidavit. The further submission of Mr. Vyas is that the term and condition of the tender notice cannot be gone into under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and further the petitioner has stated many false facts, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. In support of the aforesaid contentions Mr. Bharat Vyas has placed reliance on Ashok Kumar vs. State of W.B., 2004 (3) SCC 349 Paras 4 to 20, Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 2004 (3) Supreme Court Cases 363. 4. That on 21.09.2005 when the interim order was vacated and the case was heard at admission stage and the Judgment was reserved, liberty was given to the Counsel to submit list of case laws on which they want to rely. 5. We have received the list of cases from Mr. Bharat Vyas learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and others but no list of cases have been received from the petitioner so far. However, there are many Judgment s referred in the petition itself on the merits of the case that the State should not act arbitrarily and every action of the State should be based on the principle of reasonableness and in public interest. The Judgment cited on these grounds are Lord Denning LJ in Lee (John) and Sons (Grantham) Ltd. vs. Railway Executive, 1949 (2) All ER 581, Lord Wilberforce in Suisse Altantique case 1967 (1) AC 361, Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149 , Common Cause, A regd. Society vs. Union of India & Ors., 1996 (6) SCC 530 and 593, Kumari Viyarthi & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 537 . None of the aforesaid Judgment is on preliminary objections. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on preliminary objections and perused the contents of the writ petition. We propose to dispose it on preliminary objections of material contradiction and misleading averments and locus standi. 7. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 537 . None of the aforesaid Judgment is on preliminary objections. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on preliminary objections and perused the contents of the writ petition. We propose to dispose it on preliminary objections of material contradiction and misleading averments and locus standi. 7. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey (Supra), on the issue of PIL and locus standi in Para Nos. 4 to 20 it has been held as under:- “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. If not properly regulated and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant or poke ones nose into for a probe. 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 a 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 case and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116: 1994 SCC (Cri.) 873. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal case and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116: 1994 SCC (Cri.) 873. 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. See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 20: AIR 1993 SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, 1994 (6) SCC 620 . 5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression “public interest litigation”. In Shrouds Judicial Dictionary vol. 4, 4th Eden.,” public interest” is defined thus: “Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. 6. “In Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Eden., “Public Interest” is defined as follows: “Public Interest - Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interest of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or National Government.” 7. InJanta Dal Case, this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In Para 53 of the said Judgment , after considering what is public interest, the Court has laid down as follows:- (SCC page 331) “53. The expression “litigation” means a legal action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a Court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right of seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression “PIL” means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest of general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 8. In Paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said Judgment , it was pointed out as follows: (SCC page 334) “62. In Paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said Judgment , it was pointed out as follows: (SCC page 334) “62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasize that the requirement of locus standee of a party to the litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.” 9. In Para 98 of the said Judgment , it has further been pointed out as follows: (SCC pages 345-46) 98 While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasize at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hestened to sound a read alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervenor without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.” 10. In subsequent paras of the said Judgment , it was observed as follows: (SCC p, 348 Para 109) “109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death and facing the gallows under unfold agony, persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for the glare of publicity break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of genuine litigants and resultantly, they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 12. Publicinterest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity - seeking is not lurking. 12. Publicinterest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity - seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon or in the armory of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief . It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the past time of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs. 13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined “public interest litigation” in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows: “Public Interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interest. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interest. Such groups and interest include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” 14. The Curt 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. Such groups and interest include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” 14. The Curt 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 balance between two conflicting interets: (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 and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. The 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. Courtsmust 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 Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481 (L & S) 676: 1994 (27) ATC 116 and A.P. State Financial Corpn. vs. Gar Re-Rolling Mills, 1994 (2) SCC 647 : AIR 1994 SC 2151 . 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 licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. See Buddhi Kota Subaru (Dr.) vs. K. Parasaran, 1996 (5) SCC 530 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038: JT 1996 (7) SC 265. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Court and among the public. 16. See Buddhi Kota Subaru (Dr.) vs. K. Parasaran, 1996 (5) SCC 530 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038: JT 1996 (7) SC 265. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Court and among the public. 16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, 1998 (7) SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 1802: AIR 1999 SC 114 , this Court held that in service matters PILs should be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Court to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts. 17. Coming to the facts of the case, it has not been shown as to how and what manner the accused condemned prisoner is handicapped in not seeking relief , if any, as available in law. 17. Coming to the facts of the case, it has not been shown as to how and what manner the accused condemned prisoner is handicapped in not seeking relief , if any, as available in law. In the matter pertains to something which happened or not at Kolkatta and and what the truth about the news was or cause for the delay even if it be is not known or ascertained or even attempted to be ascertained by the petitioner before approaching this Court. To a pointed query the petitioner submitted that the petitioner “may not be aware” of his rights, that except the news he heard he could not save any further and” the respondent state may come and clarify the position close. This petition cannot be entertained on such speculative foundations and premises and to make a roving enquiry. May be at times even on certain unconfirmed news but depending upon the gravity or heinous nature of the crime alleged to be perpetrated which would prove to be obnoxious to the avored public policy, morals and greater societal interests involved, Courts have ventured to intervene but we are not satisfied that this could be one such case, on the facts disclosed. It is reliably learnt that a petition with almost identical prayers was filed before the Calcutta High Court by relatives of the accused and the same has recently been dismissed by the High Court. 18. In Gupta case it was empathetically pointed out that the relaxation of rules of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busy body or a meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a PIL litigant. It has also left the following note of caution (SCC 219, Para 24). “24. But we must be careful to see that the member of the public who approaches the Court in cases of this kind is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration the Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective.” 19. It State of H.P. vs. A parent of a student of Medical College, it has been said that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. 20. It State of H.P. vs. A parent of a student of Medical College, it has been said that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. 20. Khalid J. in his separate supplementing Judgment in Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of W.B., (SCC 331) said “Today public spirited litigants rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. (SCC 331 Para 46). “Public Interest Litigant has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to Courts and public a like. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitioners. If Courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions (SCC 334, Para 59). I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for any one to walk in. It is necessary to have some self imposed restraint on public interest litigants (SCC Page 335, Para 61”). 8. The Honble Supreme Court in another recent Judgment reported in Dr. B. Singh, (Supra), laid much emphasis to examine the issue of credentials and locus standi and held as under:-“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 or vendetta to being to terms a person, not of ones liking, or gain publicity or a facade for blackmail, the said petition has to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issues involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding the “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 “public interest litigation” or the latest trend “praise income litigation”. 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 “public interest litigation” or the latest trend “praise income litigation”. If not properly and strictly regulated at least in certain vital areas or spheres and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well as to malign not only an incumbent to be in office but demoralise and deter reasonable or sensible and prudent people even agreeing to accept highly sensitive and responsible offices for fear of being brought into disrepute with baseless allegations. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before Court 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. The credibility of such claims or litigations should be adjudged on the creditworthiness of the materials averred and not even on the credentials claimed of the person moving the Courts in such cases. 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 vs. H.S. Chowdhary, 1992 (4) SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cr.) 36 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 116: 1994 SCC (Cr.) 873. 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. See Ramjas, Foundation vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20: AIR 1993 SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, 1994 (6) SCC 620 . 9. See Ramjas, Foundation vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20: AIR 1993 SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, 1994 (6) SCC 620 . 9. It is surprising that the writ petition has been filed by a samiti, but in Paras 1 to 4 of the writ petition, there is a reference of petitioner being a practicing lawyer and further no registration certificate of the samiti has been produced. Even there was no oral explanation of this material contradiction and misleading averment. Further, no credentials of the Upbhokta Seva Samiti have been mentioned in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have considered the another ground of locus standi. 10. As regards the locus-standi is concerned, we are of the view that the Samiti is challenging the tender of supply of coal for which other tenderers who could not apply for want of fulfilling aforesaid conditions are competent enough to challenge. Further no credentials have been mentioned. Samiti has also neither disclosed its aim and object, nor the source of information of the process of the tender and its interest in matter. The affidavit in support of the writ petition filed by the Samiti is vague. 11. In view of the above, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.