Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 989 (RAJ)

Rameshwar Nirvan v. Union of India

2009-04-09

MAHESH BHAGWATI, R.C.GANDHI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is stated to have been filed as Public Interest Litigation seeking appropriate writ, order or direction to the effect:- (a) that the respondents be directed not to export the most important and popular tournament named 'Indian Premier League' to other country whether it be South Africa or England or any other country for that matter but to conduct the Indian Premier League tournament within the country and to provide adequate security by whatever means possible and to save the country from imminent heavy loss of finances, prestige and honour; (b) award costs of this writ petition to the petitioners; and (c) grant such other and further relief/s, as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present so as to give full relief to the petitioner. 2. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner No. 1 Rameshwar Nirvan claims himself to be the President of All India Karate-Do Federation, registered with the Charity Commission, Greater Mumbai and his office has been recognised by the said Commission to be at Jaipur but he is said to have been illegally ousted from the All India Karate-Do Federation by the Ministry of Sports as per his averments. Petitioner No. 2 is a viewer of the game of cricket in the field. The petitioners feel that "Indian Premier League" is an eminent tournament and if this tournament is conducted outside India, it may bring a bad name to our nation. They further feel that Indian Premier League should conduct the tournament in our country only to safeguard the name, fame and prestige of the nation. 3. Having carefully and minutely read the contents of the writ petition, it is not made out as to what transpired between Indian Premier League authorities and the respondents with regard to not providing the sufficient police or para-military forces for conducting the Indian Premier League cricket matches falling on the dates of parliamentary elections in the month of April and May of 2009. The documents on record reveal that the Indian Premier League tournament is scheduled to begin on 10th April and conclude on 24th May, 2009. The documents on record reveal that the Indian Premier League tournament is scheduled to begin on 10th April and conclude on 24th May, 2009. The photo-state copies with regard to Indian Premier League news published in daily news papers are simply "news" but not any evidence in the eye of law. It is not made out from the reading of the writ petition as to after all what factor moved the petitioners to file this petition under the garb of Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners have utterly failed to set out even a prima facie case in their favour. The pleadings are wholly omnibus, indefinite and equivocal resting on assumptions, surmises and conjectures having no ground to stand. It is not the domain of the Courts to discharge the administrative functions. From no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that any interest of public at large is involved in not holding the Indian Premier League matches in India. It may at the most cause sufferance to those few who generate huge money out of it or it may affect few local advertisers and on ground sponsors or it may cause loss of revenue to merchandise companies and entertainment companies but unequivocally and undeniably does not seem to affect the public at large as their legal and constitutional rights are not found to have been infringed. 4. The Supreme Court dealing with a case of public interest litigation by a lawyer in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590 held as under" 12. Public interest 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 in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the 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. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the 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 member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. 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 to enrich themselves. 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." 5. Now adverting to the contents of the writ petition it seems that the petitioners have filed this writ petition under the garb of Public Interest Litigation for seeking the pleasure of cheap popularity. There is a heavy duty cast upon the constitutional courts to protect themselves from the onslaught unleashed by unscrupulous litigants masquerading as Public Interest Litigants. The growing tendency of needless intrusion by strangers and busybodies in the functioning of the judiciary under the garb of Public Interest Litigation has not slowed down, inspite of intermittent caution pronounced aloud by the Apex Court in umpteen cases while extending concept of locus standi of the petitioners, especially in Public Interest Litigations. The unwanted verve shown by the petitioners in filing this frivolous Public Interest Litigation is found to be totally unwarranted. 6. For these reasons, the writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and thus, stands dismissed accordingly.Writ Petition DIsmissed. *******