Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 604 (GAU)

Bijay Prasad Sahu v. State of Manipur

2006-06-27

AFTAB H.SAIKIA, P.G.AGARWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, Petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned State Counsel appearing for the State of Manipur/official Respondents as well as Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5. 2. This Public Interest Litigation (for short, 'the PIL') preferred by the Petitioner, a leading practising Advocate of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, has been directed basically against Respondent No. 5, the Advocate General of Manipur levelling pin point allegations of cheating and misappropriation of huge amount of money from the public exchequer of the Government of Manipur by filing false bill prepared on the instruction of the Respondent No. 5 in his capacity as a Senior Advocate at the relevant time. 3. The fundamental allegation in the PIL against the Respondent No. 5 is that in Writ Appeal No. 179/02 along with connected Misc. Case No. 128/2002 filed by the State of Manipur and others as Appellants through the Respondent No. 5, being the engaged Counsel on behalf of the Appellants, as per order dated 25.04.2002, a copy of the Memo of Appeal of the said writ appeal was served upon the Petitioner, being the learned Counsel appearing for as many as 320 Respondents in the said writ appeal as he represented all of them, being the writ Petitioners, before the original Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 253/2001, the judgment and order of which was assailed by the State of Manipur in the related W.A. No. 179/02. 4. It is alleged that without serving all those 320 copies of Memo of Appeal, though prepared by making Xerox copies, upon the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 11, the Counsel junior to Respondent No. 5, on instruction of the Respondent No. 5, prepared a bill for 320 copies of Memo of Appeal each of them containing 219 pages, preparation and conducting the Misc. Application for condonation of delay, charges for preparation of 320 copies of Misc. application each of them containing 53 pages, fees for senior Advocate and fees for junior Advocate etc., to the tune of an amount of Rs. 1,34,535/- and the Respondent No. 2, the Department of Higher Education, through the Commissioner/Secretary (Higher Education) Govt. of Manipur, Imphal without examining the bill, blindly, most probably, with collusion and conspiracy with Respondent No. 5, approved the bill and pursuant to such bill, Govt. 1,34,535/- and the Respondent No. 2, the Department of Higher Education, through the Commissioner/Secretary (Higher Education) Govt. of Manipur, Imphal without examining the bill, blindly, most probably, with collusion and conspiracy with Respondent No. 5, approved the bill and pursuant to such bill, Govt. of Manipur issued an order dated 03.03.2003 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,73,235/- was accorded for payment of outstanding bill to the engagement of Respondent No. 5 in connection with the filing, appearance and defence of several Court cases in the Principal Bench of Gauhati High Court. Such act is, according to the Petitioner, a glaring example of cheating and criminal misappropriation of public money punishable under Sections 403/420 I.P.C. Committed by a responsible officer of the Court, like the Respondent No. 5, in the capacity of senior Advocate and even further, it is pleaded, he is liable for commission of fraud against the High Court for not serving essential all the 320 copies of Memo of Appeal despite High Court's order dated 25.04.02. 5. In making out a case for the PIL, the Petitioner has pleaded in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the instant petition as follows: 2. That, the present Petitioner was the conducting Counsel of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 253 of 2001 filed before this Hon'ble Court, the judgment and order of which had been assailed by the State of Manipur, through the Respondent No. 5, before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at the Principal Seat at Guwahati, by filing W.A. No. 179 of 2002 and the connected Misc. case No. 128 of 2002. 3. That the Respondent No. 10 served a notice on 27.04.2002 to the present petition whereby notice of furnishing a copy of the Memo of Appeal No. 179 of 2002 along with the Misc. Case No. 128 of 2002 were furnished on behalf of the Respondents in the said writ appeal. In the said letter the Respondent No. 10 specifically states; "As per order dated 25.04.2002 passed in Writ Appeal No. 179 of 2002, I am furnishing herewith a copy of the above referred Memo of Appeal along with a copy of the Misc. Case No. 128 of 2002 were furnished on behalf of the Respondents in the said writ appeal. In the said letter the Respondent No. 10 specifically states; "As per order dated 25.04.2002 passed in Writ Appeal No. 179 of 2002, I am furnishing herewith a copy of the above referred Memo of Appeal along with a copy of the Misc. Case No. 128/2002 for causing service of notices upon the Respondents." The said letter further informed that the matter has been fixed for further hearing at Principal Seat at Gauhati on 02.05.2005 and a copy of the order dated 25.04.2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 25.04.2002 was also enclosed with the said letter. A copy of the said letter and the Court's order are annexed herewith as ANNEXURES-A/I and A/2 respectively. 4. That, the aforesaid Writ Appeal was finally disposed of at the admission/order stage on 02.05.2002. The Respondent No. 11, on the instruction of the Respondent No. 5 prepared a bill for preparation of Memo of Appeals, charges for preparation of 320 copies of memorandum of appeal each of them containing 219 pages, preparation and conducting the Misc. Application for Condonation of delay, charges for preparation of 320 copies of Misc. Application each of them containing 53 pages, fees for senior Advocate and fees for junior Advocate etc. In the said bill it was stated that, the said 320 copies each of the Memo of Appeal and Misc. Application were Xeroxed at the rate of Rs. 1.50 p. per page. The total amount of the said bill for preparing the Appeal and the Misc. Case, as prepared by them was Rs. 1,34,535/- (One lakh thirty four thousand five hundred and thirty five) only. It was also clearly stated that the said bill was prepared on the instruction of the Respondent No. 5. The said bill was submitted to the Respondent No. 2 on 03.09.2002, about 4(four) months after the disposal of the Appeal. A copy of the said bill is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/3. 5. That, the Respondent No. 2, without examining the bill, blindly, most probably, in collusion/conspiracy with the Respondent No. 5 approved the said bill. Pursuant to the said bill (Annexure-A/3) the Deputy Secretary (Higher Education), Govt. of Manipur issued an order on 03.03.2003 whereby a sum of Rs. A copy of the said bill is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/3. 5. That, the Respondent No. 2, without examining the bill, blindly, most probably, in collusion/conspiracy with the Respondent No. 5 approved the said bill. Pursuant to the said bill (Annexure-A/3) the Deputy Secretary (Higher Education), Govt. of Manipur issued an order on 03.03.2003 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,73,235/- (one lakh seventy three thousand two hundred thirty five) only was accorded for payment of outstanding bills to the engagement of Shri Ashok Potsangbam, Sr. Advocate (High Court) in connection with the filing, appearance and defence of several Court cases in the Principal Bench, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati. The said order was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department, Govt. of Manipur vide the U.O. No. 3/2002-2003 FD(10-NP/168) dated 17.02.2003. It is pertinent to state that the said order was endorsed to various officials/authorities including the P.S. to the concerned Minister, A.G. etc. A copy of the said order is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/4. 6. That, the Petitioner begs to submit, as also stated by the Respondent No. 10 in the said notice/letter dated 27.04.2002, only a copy each of the said writ appeal No. 179 of 2002 (State of Manipur -Vs. Shri K. Imeton Singh and 319 Ors.) and the Misc. Application No. 128 of 2002 were furnished by the Respondent No. 10 to the Petitioner. No other copies other then the said one copy each was furnished along with the said letter/notice dated 27.04.2002 to the Petitioner at any point of time. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the said appeal was disposal of on 02.05.2002 itself. However, the Respondent No. 11 on the instruction from the Respondent No. 5 prepared the false bill for photocopying 320 numbers of writ appeal and also 320 numbers of Misc. Application and submitted the same to the Department of Education (U), Govt. of Manipur and thereafter, fraudulently got the bill sanctioned and thereafter encashed the same from the Govt. Exchequer at the cost of the general public, by cheating in gross violation of the relevant provisions of law both criminal and civil. 6. Application and submitted the same to the Department of Education (U), Govt. of Manipur and thereafter, fraudulently got the bill sanctioned and thereafter encashed the same from the Govt. Exchequer at the cost of the general public, by cheating in gross violation of the relevant provisions of law both criminal and civil. 6. In the backdrop of the above facts situation, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordship's be pleased to: (i) call for the records of the case and also to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Principal Respondents to show cause as to why the prayer prayed for by the Petitioner shall not be granted. And, after hearing them make the rule absolute. (ii) issue writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the concerned authorities to probe into the matter by an independent investigating authority including Central Bureau of Investigation etc. to find out the truth of the case and the identity of the persons involved in the cheating and fraud in conspiracy with the Respondent No. 5. (iii) issue writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the concerned authorities including the Proforma Respondent No. 8 and/or the Police to prosecute the Respondent No. 5 as per the relevant provisions of the Criminal law and to take appropriate disciplinary action against the said Respondent for his gross misconduct, alongwith the other persons involved. (iv) pass any other appropriate writ/order/direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the interest of justice. (v) award cost of the petition to the Petitioner. -AND- Pending disposal of the petition Your Lordships be pleased to grant ex-parte interim relief by directing an ad-interim enquiry into the matter and to suspend the Principal Respondent No. 5 from practicing law or to direct the concerned Bar Council to do so. And/or pass any other appropriate interim order that this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and just in the interest of justice. 7. Rejecting all the contentions and allegations canvassed by the Petitioner, Mr. Sarma, learned State Counsel has strenuously urged that the PIL, is not at all maintainable in its present form. According to him, not a single averment and statement has been made on oath and those not being sworn statements cannot be entertained in a case of PIL. 7. Rejecting all the contentions and allegations canvassed by the Petitioner, Mr. Sarma, learned State Counsel has strenuously urged that the PIL, is not at all maintainable in its present form. According to him, not a single averment and statement has been made on oath and those not being sworn statements cannot be entertained in a case of PIL. To bolster up his submission, the attention of the Court is drawn to the affidavit appended to this writ petition at page 23, which reads as under.: AFFIDAVIT I, Bijay Prasad Saha, aged about 48 years, S/O Shri Kesho Prasad Sahu, resident of Mantripukhri, P.O.- Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang and District Imphal East, Manipur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as: 1. That, I am the Petitioner in the accompanying Writ Petition (PIL) and as such am well acquainted with the facts of the case. 2. That, the annexures annexed to the accompanying Writ Petition (PIL) are true copies of the originals thereof. VERIFICATION Verified at Imphal, on this the 9th day of June, 2006 that the contents of the above affidavit and the accompanying Writ Petition are true to the best of my knowledge and that nothing materials has been concealed thereof. DEPONENT/PETITIONER 8. Mr. Sarma has submitted that the affidavit above quoted would manifestly show that the statements and allegations made in the PIL have not been specifically sworn on oath to be true to his own knowledge or to his information as required under Rules 26 and 27 of Chapter- IV of the Gauhati High Court Rules. 9. It would be relevant and necessary to refer to the same which run as under: 26. When the declarant in any affidavit speaks to any fact within his own knowledge, he shall do so directly and positively using the works "I affirm (or make Oath) and say. 27. When the particular fact is not within the declarant's own knowledge, but is stated from information obtained from others, the declarant shall use the expression. When the declarant in any affidavit speaks to any fact within his own knowledge, he shall do so directly and positively using the works "I affirm (or make Oath) and say. 27. When the particular fact is not within the declarant's own knowledge, but is stated from information obtained from others, the declarant shall use the expression. "I am informed", and if such be the case, should add' "and verily believe it to be true" and he must also state the source from which he received such information." When the statement rests on facts disclosed in documents or copies of documents procured from any Court of Justice or other source the deponent shall state what is the source from which they were procured, and his information or belief as to the truth of the facts disclosed in such documents. Copies of documents (other than those on the record of the case) to which it is intended that reference should be made at the time of hearing shall be annexed to the affidavit and shall be marked as an exhibit and shall bear the certificate of the Commissioner before whom the affidavit is made. 10. It is further contended by the learned State Counsel that the Petitioner has miserably failed to disclose his source of information as regards the preparation of 320 copies each of Memo of Appeal and Misc. Application as well as the approval and accord relating to the alleged fictitious bill given by the Department concerned vide order dated 03.03.03 which has been annexed as Annexure- A/4 to the writ petition and also averred in paragraphs 4 and 5 as already noted above. The firm stand of the Govt. of Manipur in this case is, according to Mr. Sarma, that an oblique attempt with vested interest has been made to malign the first law officer of a State i.e., the Advocate General who is none but the Respondent No. 5 and accordingly the PIL needs to be dismissed in limine with costs. 11. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. of Manipur in this case is, according to Mr. Sarma, that an oblique attempt with vested interest has been made to malign the first law officer of a State i.e., the Advocate General who is none but the Respondent No. 5 and accordingly the PIL needs to be dismissed in limine with costs. 11. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 has tenaciously contended at the very outset that on the face of the application itself it candidly goes to show that it is not a PIL but a frivolous and vexatious petition filed against the Respondent No. 5 with the sole and only purport and thrust to tarnish the image and reputation of Respondent No. 5 who is presently holding the highest law office of the State of Manipur, i.e. the Advocate General of Manipur. It is further emphatically argued that no writ petition including the PIL in the instant form is maintainable against any individual including the Respondent No. 5, not being a State or any other authority under Article12 of the Constitution as at the relevant time of alleged commission of so-called filing false bill, he was a senior Advocate at the Bar and on this count alone the PIL liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 12. Straightway inviting attention of this Court to paragraph-11 of the PIL, which reads as under: That, the Petitioner begs to submit that the Respondent No. 5 while cheating/defrauding the State of its exchequer have also used/misused the order of this Hon'ble Court, thereby committing the office of cheating and fraud against the Hon'ble Court as well. Any appeal is a different case and hence the Counsel who appears in the writ appeal may have nothing to do in the appeal as the litigant/client may choose any other Counsel of his choice in the appeal which is generally done. A Counsel who appears in the writ Court can not accept notice on behalf of the parties in a wit appeal unless he filed a Caveat/Vakalatnama in the Writ Appeal. But in the present case the Petitioner was compelled to accept notice on behalf of the Respondents who are as many as 320 therein by virtue of the Hon'ble Court's order (A/2) which was obtained by the Respondent No. 5 with the illegal intention/motive to use it or misuse it to his benefit. Mr. But in the present case the Petitioner was compelled to accept notice on behalf of the Respondents who are as many as 320 therein by virtue of the Hon'ble Court's order (A/2) which was obtained by the Respondent No. 5 with the illegal intention/motive to use it or misuse it to his benefit. Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel has forcefully submitted that an ordinary reading of this statement will be suffice to dismiss the PIL by imposing an exemplary heavy costs. His basic thrust is that it is a case of 2002 which was also admittedly disposed of on 02.05.02 and in view of this fact situation, the reason for filing this PIL in the year 2006 is obvious i.e. only to disrepute the Respondent No. 5. Referring especially to the sentence in the above paragraph to the effect that "in the present case the Petitioner was compelled to accept notice on behalf of the Respondents who are as many as 320 therein by virtue of the Hon'ble Court's order (A/2) which was obtained by the Respondent No. 5 with the illegal intention/motive to use it or misuse it to his benefit" and taking the serious note to the same, Mr. Dutta has vehemently contended that this Court did not compel the Petitioner at any point of time to accept notice upon the Respondents vide order dated 25.04.02 and nobody obtains any order from the Court with the illegal intention and motive to use it or misuse it to one's benefit and this statement ex-facie is nothing but manifestation of professional rivalry and personal interest nurtured by the Petitioner against the Respondent No. 5. 13. In support of his submission, the learned Sr. Counsel has strongly relied upon a recent case of Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 540 (Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware-Vs.-State of Maharashtra and Ors.). 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentious arguments and submissions advanced by the Petitioner himself in person and also the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel representating the State/Respondents as well as Respondent No. 5. 15. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentious arguments and submissions advanced by the Petitioner himself in person and also the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel representating the State/Respondents as well as Respondent No. 5. 15. On meticulous scanning of the materials available on record including the averments made in the petition itself with all the Annexures appended thereto, it would apparently appear that it is not a case of public interest but absolutely a private interest litigation instituted to fulfil the intention and design aiming at to harm and taint the image and reputation of Respondent No. 5, the present Advocate General of Manipur and a senior Advocate at the relevant time of alleged commission of fraud, cheating and criminal appropriation of public money. Judicial activism under the banner of the PIL is primarily not evolved to besmirch the character or reputation of an individual. The instant PIL with available materials incorporated herein, prima facie appears, though styled as public interest litigation, is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute against the official authorities and the individuals arrayed as the party-Respondents in the body of the PIL itself. 16. From the perusal of the materials made available on record, in our humble opinion, as it appears, it may be a case, at best, of criminal nature as reflected from the very averments pleaded in the PIL itself referring to Sections 403/420 I.P.C. and/or for reference to the State Bar Council as the Petitioner ought to have approached, the Bar Council for redressal of his grievances, if at all aggrieved by such alleged act on the Respondent No. 5. 17. However, on thorough analysis of the contentions made in the PIL, we are wondering how the Petitioner is prejudiced in not getting the remaining 319 xerox copies of the Memo of Appeal and other application each when one copy each of the Memo of Appeal, being the similar of all those, were served upon him. 18. So far the statement made in paragraph-11 as referred to above is concerned, it is amazing to note that how the Petitioner was compelled by this Court to accept notice on behalf of Respondent when order dated 25.04.02 does not indicate any direction of such nature. 19. It would be appropriate herein to refer to the order dated 25.04.02 which reads as under: ORDER Heard Mr. 19. It would be appropriate herein to refer to the order dated 25.04.02 which reads as under: ORDER Heard Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned Counsel for the Appellants. Let a notice of motion be issued for 02.05.2002 calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. To come up with W.A. No. 37/2002. Till further orders, the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 27.03.2001 in W.P.(C) No. 253/2001 shall remain stayed. The Respondents be served through their Counsel in Contempt Case No. 330/2001 as well as in W.P.(C) No. 253/2001. Copy of this order, attested by the Court Master be given to the Counsel for the Appellants. 20. Apart from this, this Court has also taken serious note to the statement to the effect, as has already been referred to by Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel, that High Court's order was obtained by Respondent No. 5 with illegal intention and motive to use it or misuse it to his benefit. This statement, in our opinion, clearly reflects that the Petitioner wants to take personal advantage over the Respondent No. 5 due to his professional rivalry because admittedly in the related Writ Appeal aforenoted, the order of the learned Single judge granting relief to the Petitioner' 320 clients in W.P.(C) No. 253/2001 was stayed. Even the related W.A. No. 179/2002 was also finally disposed of on 02.05.2002. Pertinent it to notice that the Petitioner instituted the PIL after a long gap of 4 years from the date of disposal of the said writ appeal and about 3 years of passing the order dated 03.03.2003 according for payment of the alleged bill. There is no explanation whatsoever as such in preferring the PIL at such belated stage. In view of such fact situation, we are of the view, that the Petitioner is not acting bonafide and it is not a fit case in nature of public interest. The Petitioner, not being affected by any action as alleged, has failed to demonstrate any violation of his fundamental rights or any other legal rights. It can, therefore, be safely said that the Petitioner has no locus standi to file this PIL. 21. The Petitioner, not being affected by any action as alleged, has failed to demonstrate any violation of his fundamental rights or any other legal rights. It can, therefore, be safely said that the Petitioner has no locus standi to file this PIL. 21. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment of S.P. Gupta -vs.-Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 comprehensively dealt with the question of locus standi and in paragraph 23 it was held as under: We must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this kind, is acting bonafide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. Hence, a person, acting not in bonafide and for personal gain and/or personal profit cannot be permitted to seek relief through PIL. 22. Since the Petitioner has alleged misappropriation of Government money, this Court is of the firm view that the Petitioner ought to have approached the official Respondents for vindication of his grievances being a tax payer citizen of a country. But no such attempt has been made by the Petitioner before approaching this Court. In a case of Dr. D.C. Sexena v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India reported in AIR 1996 SC 2481 wherein a PIL was instituted under Article32 of the Constitution of India to direct to the then President of Indian National Congress and the former Prime Minister to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs and odd to be due to the Union of India for use of Indian Air Force aircraft or helicopters, the Apex Court, discouraging the exercise of power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in PIL, held in paragraph 50 as under: 50. ...The exercise of power under Article 32 was not appropriate since the Government in the Defence Department could recover from the Prim Minister's Secretariat or from the Congress Party, as the case may be, all the arrears, if any, due and payable by the respective entities.... Even such action, as alleged in the PIL, has not been brought to the notice of the competent authority under the State-Respondents. 23. Even such action, as alleged in the PIL, has not been brought to the notice of the competent authority under the State-Respondents. 23. In Sexena's case (supra) wherein allegation has also been made against the then Chief Justice of India for a declaration that the Respondent was unfit to hold the office of CJI, the Supreme Court in a strong worded observation in paragraph 31 ruled that no body had a right to denigrate the right to a person and reputation and therefore freedom of speech and expression was tolerated so long as it was not malicious or libelous against any person. Paragraph-31 reads as under: 31. If maintenance of democracy is the foundation for free speech, society equally is entitled to regulate freedom of speech or expression by democratic action. The reason is obvious, viz., hat society accepts free speech and expression and also puts limits on the right of the majority. Interest of the people involve din the acts of expression should be looked at not only from the perspective of the speaker but also the place at which he speaks, the scenario, the audience, the reaction of the publication, the purpose of the speech and the place and the forum in which the citizen exercises his freedom of speech and expression. The State has legitimate interest, therefore, to regulate the freedom of speech and expression which liberty represents the limits of the duty of restraint on speech or expression no to utter defamatory or libelous speech or expression/there is a co-relative duty not to interfere with the liberty of others. Each is entitled to dignity of person and of reputation. Nobody has a right to denigrate others' right to person or reputation. Therefore, freedom of speech and expression is tolerated so long as it is not malicious or libelous so that all attempts to foster and ensue orderly and peaceful public discussion or public good should result from free speech in the marked place. If such speech or expression as untrue and so reckless as to its truth, the speaker or the authority/does not get protection of the constitutional rights. 24. If such speech or expression as untrue and so reckless as to its truth, the speaker or the authority/does not get protection of the constitutional rights. 24. More significantly, it transpires from the perusal of the contentions made in the PIL itself that though the Petitioner has sought for issue of a direction by way of writ of or in the nature of Mandamus, there is no whisper in the entire petition that he has ever demanded justice and the same has been denied to him. It is settled that whoever seeks a writ of Mandamus, the petition must be preceded by a distinct demand for performance of duty in order to give the party an opportunity to consider whether he should comply or not and such demand must be shown to have been met by a refusal either by words or conduct, so that the Court might be satisfied the party complained of his determined not to do what is demanded. It is to be noted that such demand must be made prior to the writ petition filed. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1975 SC 460 at paragraph 24, the Supreme Court held as under: 24. ...The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognize rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged branches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exception applied. It is in England, when a writ of Mandamus is asked for, could be stated as well find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition, Voll. 3, P. 106); As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and hat demand was met by a refusal. 25. 25. In another case pertaining to PIL reported in AIR 1999 SC 3211 (Malik Brothers, V. Narendra Dadhich and Ors.) The Apex Court, underlining the parameters as regards the entertainment of PIL, in paragraph 2 observed as follows: 2. ...a public interest litigation is usually entertained by a Court for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social rights and vindicating public interest. The real purpose of entertaining such application is the vindication of the rule of law, effective ace to justice to the economically weaker class and meaningful realization of the fundamental rights. The directions and commands issued by the Courts of law in a public interest litigation are for the betterment of the society at large and not for benefiting any individual. But if the Court finds that in the garb of public interest litigation actually an individual's interest is sought to be carried out or protected, it would be bounden duty of the Court not to entertain such petition as otherwise the very purpose of innovation of public interest litigation will be frustrated. It is in fact litigation in which a person is not aggrieved personally but brings an action on behalf of downtrodden mass for the redressal of their grievances. 26. In dealing with the scope of PIL elaborately and its abuse by lawyer, the Supreme Court expressing its anxiety and anguish in a recent case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra) in paragraph 4, 9 and 11 held as follows: 4. ...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 pollute 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.... 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.... 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. 9. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary as 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 in the armoury 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 be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or members 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 by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheep popularity. The petition of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 11. 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; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. 11. 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; (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 interests; (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 grievances, 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 impostors and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited by me. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of probono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 27. Insofar as the argument offered by the State Counsel as regards the acceptability of the unsworn contentions made in the PIL without a proper affidavit as already indicated is concerned, this Court, in full agreement with such submission put forward on behalf of the official Respondents, is of the view that statements and averments made in the PIL are not properly sworn to be true to his own knowledge of the Petitioner to prove the same and are found to be contrary to provisions of Rules 26 and 27 of Chapter- IV of the Gauhati High Court Rules as well as are not in consonance with the spirit of Order 19 Rule 3(1) Code of Civil Procedure which runs as under: 3. Matters to which affidavits shall be confined: (1) Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted; provided that the grounds thereof are stated. 28. Besides, an ordinary reading of paragraph-5, as already quoted herein above, would go to show that admittedly a sum of Rs. 28. Besides, an ordinary reading of paragraph-5, as already quoted herein above, would go to show that admittedly a sum of Rs. 1,73,235.00 was accorded for outstanding bills for engaging Respondent No. 5 in connection with filing, appearance and defence of several Court cases in the Principal Bench, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati; meaning thereby, such amount referred to was not solely against the alleged bill as pleaded in the PIL, but the entire amount includes the payment against the outstanding bills to which the Respondent No. 5 is entitled to for his professional fees. 29. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, taking into account the entire materials available on record including the pleadings in the PIL, and having regard to the judicial authorities cited above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Petitioner without having any locus standi has come to the Court not with bonafide intention and only for personal gain with oblique consideration to damage the reputation of the Respondent No. 5. 30. In the result, the PIL stands dismissed at the motion stage. 31. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are disinclined to pass any order as to costs. Petition dismissed