JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is filed by Bhartiya Lions Parishangh through its President as a public interest litigation. 2. It is a case of the petitioner that respondent No.2, i.e., the Association of Lions International and respondent No.3, i.e., Lions Club International Foundation, have failed to regulate their activities and are not complying with the Indian laws which resulted in the loss of huge tax revenue and tremendous outflow of foreign currency reserves of the country is not checked causing incalculable loss to the country. The respondent No.2 is an International Association of the Lions Clubs, chartered by the association itself and having its Head Officer in USA. The purpose of the said association is highlighted in para 3 of the petition. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 has chartered more than 4,50() Lions Clubs in India and it controls and supervises their activities through its Indian and Sought East Asian Officer located at Mumbai. It is the say of the petitioner that the Lions Clubs in India are organised and Chartered by Lions International. It is the case of the petitioner that these Clubs are working as autonomous bodies and they do not appear to have any legal entity status registered under any Indian Laws. It is the grievance of the petitioner that unless the Lions Clubs are registered either under the Societies Registration Act or any other Law, their activities cannot be checked or monitored and that if any particular club is found to have committed violation of any law, no action can be taken against such individual club. It is a case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 - Lions Clubs International Foundation (known as LCIF) is so called charitable arm of the Lions International and it appears to be registered under the United States of America. In para 7 of the petition, it is averred that the petitioner after making necessary Investigation and research at its own level, could obtain some vital information about the functioning of respondents No.2 to 4 and ultimately have formed a reasonable opinion that due to their activities our country has already suffered loss of tax revenue which may be estimated more than Rs. 2000/- crores to Rs. 5000/- crores till financial year 2002-03 and losing more than Rs. 100 crore per annum under the Income Tax Law. 2000/- crores to Rs. 5000/- crores till financial year 2002-03 and losing more than Rs. 100 crore per annum under the Income Tax Law. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondents No.2 to 4 are operating in India in organised manner, have more than 1,70,000/- members and is involved in the financial transactions in the range of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 300/- crores per annum yet none of such organizations is registered with any Government Authority or Department under the Indian laws as income Tax Law, Sales Tax Laws, Societies Registration Act, I'ublic Trust Act, etc. It is also a case of the petitioner that the formation of new club procedure never gives any guidelines to get them registered with local Government Authorities and Chartered Lions Clubs are not allowed to have their own constitution different from the model constitution. It is also a grievance of the petitioner that the Lions International, though not registered in India, is operating its activities in India through its South East Asia Office at Mumabi under the supervision of International Secretary permanently residing in India and collecting such amount towards contribution as admission charges and life membership charges etc. The case of the petitioner therefore, is that this petition has been filed as public interest litigation, wherein it is prayed as under : "(i) Direct the various Government Departments to submit their respective reports about the activities of the respondent Lions International, LCIF and its chartered Lions Clubs operating under their jurisdiction and ensure compliance by them of the respective Indian laws like Income Tax Act, FEMA, FERA, Sales Tax Laws, Public Trust Act and Societies Registration Act. (ii) Direct the respondent No.2 Lions International and Lions Clubs chartered by Lions International and respondent No.3 LCIF to submit complete details about its working in India, their financial data and accounts. (iii) Direct the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 to stop their operations forthwith in India without complying with all relevant laws of India. (iv) Direct a CBI enquiry into the affairs of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 and make a detailed report to this Hon'ble Court. (v) Any other appropriate relief as may be considered fit and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, including exemplary costs and damages in favour of the petitioner society." 3. (iv) Direct a CBI enquiry into the affairs of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 and make a detailed report to this Hon'ble Court. (v) Any other appropriate relief as may be considered fit and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, including exemplary costs and damages in favour of the petitioner society." 3. This Court by order dated 11.7.2005 admitted the petition and passed following interim order on 28.7.2006 : "28.07.2006. The instant petition under the label of public interest litigation has been filed in the name of Bhartiya Lions Parisangh. It is averred that the second respondent the International Association of Lions Clubs and the third respondent Lions Clubs International Foundation are operating in India in organised manner having more than 1,70,000 members and involved in financial transactions in the range of Rs. 150 to Rs. 300 Crores per annum since last so many years, but none of them are registered with any Government Authority or Department under any Indian laws like Income Tax Law, Sales Tax Laws, Societies Registration Act, Public Trust Act etc. Some more serious allegations have been made in paras 9, 10, 11 and 12. The allegations have been refuted by the respondents. The Income Tax Department has taken a stand that informations have been collected from certain Lion Clubs located a Udaipur. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record, we are of the view that the allegations made by the petitioners particularly in para 9 and other paras referred to require to be scrutinised by the concerned authorities more particularly the Department of Income Tax. Thus, while keeping the petition pending, we direct the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur to scrutinise the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition and where-ever it is necessary to issue directions to the concerned assessing authorities. Similarly, we direct the 6th respondent the Chairman, Central Board of Customs & Excise, New Delhi to scrutinise the allegations made in the writ petition and make an effective report to this Court. Both the authorities are granted four months time to make the report to this Court. List after four months." 4. Similarly, we direct the 6th respondent the Chairman, Central Board of Customs & Excise, New Delhi to scrutinise the allegations made in the writ petition and make an effective report to this Court. Both the authorities are granted four months time to make the report to this Court. List after four months." 4. On the basis of the aforesaid interim order, various local lions clubs who are functioning within the State of Rajasthan have been subjected to the notice under the Income Tax Act by the Department and it is pointed to this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department that the Department is already ceased of the matter and is examining the question whether the provision of the Act is attracted as well as other aspect of the matter is also under examination of the Department. Learned counsel Mr. V.K. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the Union of India has also submitted that so far as question about the service tax and FEMA is concerned, the concerned Departments of the Union of India are already looking after the same and are proceeding in accordance with law against such local clubs. It is submitted by Mr. Mathur that steps have already been taken for initiating appropriate proceedings by the Department and the Department is trying to find out whether any violation of FEMA has been committed by any Lions Club operating in the State of Rajasthan. We have noted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department as well as Union of India. Learned counsel Mr. R.N. Upadhyay who is appearing for the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has submitted that RBI has already considered the question whether the respondents No.2 and 2 have violated any of the provisions. It is submitted by him that the RBI has not so far received any information in connection with the violation of Foreign Control (Regulation) Act, 1976. It is submitted by Mr. Upadhyay that the RBI is unnecessarily joined as party as no relief is claimed against it. 5. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3, vehemently submitted that this petition which is labelled as a public interest litigation is not a genuine public interest litigation. It is submitted by Mr. Upadhyay that the RBI is unnecessarily joined as party as no relief is claimed against it. 5. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3, vehemently submitted that this petition which is labelled as a public interest litigation is not a genuine public interest litigation. It is submitted by him that before considering the petition as a public interest petition, the credentials of the petitioner are required to be examined. It is submitted by Mr. Andhyarujina that no public element is involved in this matter. It is further submitted that the petitioner is deliberately using the word "Lions" and it has registered its association in the name of Bhartiya Lions Parisangh, only with an object to divert the members of various local Lions Club. It is submitted that a civil suit has been filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 before the Bombay High Court against one of such organizations who was using word "Lions" in their name and the Bombay High Court has granted interim injunction in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 who are the original plaintiffs, restraining the defendant of that suit from using the words "Lions" and "Logo". It is submitted that the petitioner association has deliberately chosen the word "Lions" in the name of their club when it is known fact that Lions Club is an International organisation and, therefore, intention of the petitioner in using the word "Lions' in the name of their organisation is with an object to pass of their organisation as that of respondents No.2 and 3. It is further submitted by Mr. Andhyarujina that filing of such petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that vague allegations have been made in the petition without any factual foundation and the petitioner has not given any material for making such reckless allegations against respondents No. 2 and 3 and the petitioner has not even given particulars in connection with any particular allegation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has tried to infringe the trade mark of respondents No.2 and 3 by using the word "Lions" and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed. It is further submitted by Mr. It is further submitted that the petitioner has tried to infringe the trade mark of respondents No.2 and 3 by using the word "Lions" and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed. It is further submitted by Mr. Andhyarunjina that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as the office of respondents No.2 and 3 is located at Bombay and the writ of this Court cannot travel beyond the territorial limits of the State of Rajasthan. It is further submitted that the alleged illegality is attributed to local lions clubs who are functioning on their own and whether such local lions clubs are subjected to income Tax or whether any other provision of any Act is applicable to such clubs is a question which cannot be decided without hearing such individual clubs and without joining such local Loans Clubs, this petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the local lions clubs are carrying out their social activities independently and such local clubs are holding elections from time to time. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. It is further submitted by Mr. Andhyarujina that respondents No.2 and 3 are internationally reputed organizations and are carrying out their charitable activities throughout the world and the same is purely a charitable institution. It is submitted that the respondents No.2 and 3 are rendering tremendous human services and the institution has always given assistance to the needy people by providing financial and other aids in case of earth quake, cyclone or sunami or any such natural calamities in the world throughout. It is further submitted that in India also, the respondents have provided adequate financial held and social services in case of any natural calamities. It is further submitted that such type of petition may discourage the concerned respondents from carrying out their noble activities as un-ncessarily they are required to defend such litigation, for which no basis is there. It is submitted that in order to discourage the activities of various Lions Clubs, this petition has been filed with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that various such international clubs who are operating in India, yet the petitioner has deliberately chosen the respondents No.2 and 3 for filing this petition in which reckless allegations have been made. It is submitted that in order to discourage the activities of various Lions Clubs, this petition has been filed with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that various such international clubs who are operating in India, yet the petitioner has deliberately chosen the respondents No.2 and 3 for filing this petition in which reckless allegations have been made. It is submitted that there is hardly any substance in the allegations levelled against the respondents No.2 and 3. It is further submitted that moment the respondents No. 2 and 3 obtained injunction from Bombay High Court against one of the clubs who was using the word "Lion" that this petitioner has filed this petition which, according to Mr. Andhyarujina, cannot be said to be a bone fide public interest litigation. Mr. Andhyarunjina also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Dr. B. Singh V. Union of India ( 2004 (3) SCC 363 ) , wherein it has been held that in PIL, no body should be allowed to indluge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others. The PIL. should be only for genuine public wrong or public injury and not for the redressal of private publicity oriented or political dispute or other disputes not genuinely concerned with the public interest. If no genuine public element is involved, then such PIL should not be entertained. He also relied upon the decision of (2) Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware V. State of Maharasthra ( 2005 (1) SCC 590 ) , wherein the view has been taken by the Supreme Court that PIL is not for redressal of private, publicity-oriented or other disputes and scrutiny is required to be made that there should be justifiable ground to find out whether the action of the executive is taken with oblique motive. It has also been held in (3) R. & M. Trust case ( 2005 (3) SCC 91 ) that the Court should entertain P.I.L. in very rare cases where interest of the public at large stand to suffer and this jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked for he purpose of serving private ends professional rivalry. 6. Mr. Sinhgvi on the other hand submitted that where public exchequer is involved, the Court can entertain the PIL, irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner before the Court is a bona fide person or not. 6. Mr. Sinhgvi on the other hand submitted that where public exchequer is involved, the Court can entertain the PIL, irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner before the Court is a bona fide person or not. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (4) Vishwanath Chaturvedi V. Union of India & Others, reported in 2007 Legal Eagle 232 , wherein while considering the maintainability of PIL, the Supreme Court in para 40 has held as under : "40. It is equally true that PIL is not maintainable to prove or enquire into the returns or another taxpayer except in special circumstances. It is the ratio of the decision of House of Lords in the case of Inland Revenue Commissioners V. National Federation of Self-employed and Small Business Ltd., 1982 Appeal Cases, 617. However, when scams take place, allegation of disproportionate assets are required to be looked into. In the case of M.C. Mehta V. Union of India & Others (Taj Trapezium Matter), (2003) 8 SCC 696 , the Division Bench of this Court not only directed CBI to investigate the cases against the bureaucrats but also to enquire the outflow of Rs. 17 crores released by the State of U.P. In respect of project undertaken by NPCC. In that matter, the income tax returns of the former Chief Minister and other officials were ordered to be collected by this Court. They were directed to be collected from various income tax authorities. The point to be noted is that the source of the funds plays a crucial role in investigations by CBI in matters involving misappropriation of public funds." 7. He also referred to the case of (5) Ashok Lanka & Another Vs. Rishi Dixit & Others (2005) 5 SCC 598 , wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that even if petitioner in fact moved the Court in private interest and for redressal of his personal grievances, court can proceed to inquire the State of affairs of the subject of the litigation in the interest of justice and in furtherance of public interest. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the petition as well as the reply filed by the respondents No.2 and 3. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the petition as well as the reply filed by the respondents No.2 and 3. It is required to be noted that respondents No.2 and 3 as well as petitioner are charitable institutions and they are interested in serving the cause of the people at large. The respondents No.2 and 3 cannot be said to be State within the meaning of Article 212. The Lions Club is doing its charitable activities throughout world. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out to us that the Lions Clubs are functioning at local level since last more than five deceased and are associated in the noble cause for helping the people in case of need or in case of any emergency. So far as local Lions Clubs are concerned, they are functioning on their own and if it is alleged that such clubs are not paying any income tax or violating any law of the land, in our view, no relief can be granted against such individual clubs, unless they are joined as party to this petition. It may be true that functioning of various local Lions Clubs are sponsored by respondents No.2 and 3, yet the petitioner is required to join such local clubs as party to the petition as ultimately the question about applicability of Income Tax Act or other laws is to be considered in connection with such local clubs and without hearing such local clubs, it would not be proper to give any specific direction against any individual club. In our view, therefore, such type of general prayer as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted in this petition. Though we find substance in the arguments of Mr. Andhyarujina that the petition is filed without there being any specific averment in that behalf or without there being any material in connection with the alleged allegation made in the petition, we are of the opinion that before approaching this Court straightway, the petitioner should have made representation to the concerned Authority and if it was brought to the notice of this Court that the concerned Department is not taking note of any such representation, this Court could have considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter. We deprecate the practice of rushing to the Court straightway without making any complaint or representation to the concerned Department as it is for the concerned department to look into the matter. It is, however, pointed out to this Court that in view of the interim order of this Court, the concerned Authorities are now ceased of the matter and proceeding against particular individual clubs in accordance with law. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it is not necessary to monitor this aspect further by keeping this petition pending. It is for the concerned Department to proceed against particular institution/club in accordance with law and to find out as to whether any provision of law is violated by any such institutions/clubs. It is for the concerned Department to act in accordance with law against any individual club as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The questions whether the Income Tax Act is applicable and whether any exemption is sought for or whether any exemption is granted, are the questions which are to be examined by the Income Tax Department. Suffice it to say that when the concerned authorities are already proceeding against individual institution/club, now it is not necessary to give any further direction. It is however, required to be noted as to in which manner the Department should proceed against a particular club/institution is left to the discretion of such Department as we are not required to express our opinion on this aspect. Similarly, we are not required to monitor the orders passed by such authorities even in connection with assessment in any individual case by the department. It is, therefore, for the concerned authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law as deemed fit. We also make it clear that we are not required to express our opinion as to in which manner a particular club/institution should be assessed as appropriate machinery is provided under a particular act and on the basis of same, the authorities are iequired to act. The learned counsel Mr. Mathur, Standing Council for Union of India submitted that the concerned Department of the Union of India is examining the matter, but it is difficult for the Department to act upon such vague allegations in the petition. The learned counsel Mr. Mathur, Standing Council for Union of India submitted that the concerned Department of the Union of India is examining the matter, but it is difficult for the Department to act upon such vague allegations in the petition. In our view, it is for the concerned Department i.e. the Union of India to act on the basis of available material as deemed fit in accordance with law. We are not required to say as to in which manner the concerned Department should take decision as it is needless to say that such decisions are to be taken as per law. However, before taking any action against any individual club or institution, the concerned authorities will also be required to hear such individual club or association as such individual clubs/institutions are not before us and therefore, we cannot give any other direction against such individual club or institution. 9. We have also noted the argument of the learned Advocate for the Reserve Bank of India that nothing has come to the notice of Reserve Bank of India about violation of any law by any local Lions Club. It is submitted by the counsel for the RBI that as and when any individual complaint is received, the same will be looking into and appropriate proceedings in accordance with law will be initiated. 10. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in our view, no further orders are required to be passed in this matter especially when now the concerned Department is going to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is not necessary to keep the aforesaid matter pending as this Court is not expected to monitor the decision taken by the Department in any individual case. Since the interim order of this Court is already complied with, in our view, it is not necessary to examine wider question as to whether it is genuine public interest litigation or whether it is filed with ulterior motive. We are not giving any finding on this aspect as now it is not necessary to go into this question. We also make it clear that whatever observations which we have made hereinabove should not be constructed as if this Court has come to a conclusion that this I'IL is maintainable against the respondents No.2 and 3 or whether any genuine public interest litigation is involved in this matter. Mr. We also make it clear that whatever observations which we have made hereinabove should not be constructed as if this Court has come to a conclusion that this I'IL is maintainable against the respondents No.2 and 3 or whether any genuine public interest litigation is involved in this matter. Mr. Andhyarujina at this stage submitted that since the respondents No.2 and 3 are dragged into this litigation for no fault on their part and the petition is filed without there being any proper material on record, appropriate cost may be awarded to the respondents No.2 and 3. However, we would not like to burden the petitioner by way of cost especially when according to the petitioner it is a charitable institution which is registered under the Societies Registration Act. However, the petitioner may be more careful in future and it is expected that before filing such public interest litigation, atleast attention of the concerned authorities may be drawn by making appropriate representation. We also make it clear that this order may be construed in connection with local clubs located in the State of Rajasthan. We also make it clear that we have not given any direction petitioner the respondents No.2 and 3 in any manner and the petition is disposed of in view of the facts stated above i.e. the interim order has been complied by the concerned Department and it is for the concerned Department now to proceed against any individual club/institution in accordance with law and take appropriate decision as per law as deemed fit. 11. In view of the observations made hereinabove, we accordingly dispose of this petition and ultimately we find that the prayers made in the petition have become infructuous in view of the subsequent developments. No order as to costs.Petition disposed of. *******