Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 284 (CHH)

Shravan Kumar Tiwari v. State of C. G.

2010-12-07

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2010
ORDER Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1. Learned Counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2. Petitioner Shravan Kumar Tiwari claiming himself to be a social worker has filed this writ petition styled as 'Public Interest Litigation' for the following reliefs: 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the deputation of employees in the Transport Department from the office of Respondents. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents and its authorities to take appropriate action in respect to Annexure P-1 and P-2 and stop the deputizing the employees from other department in the Transport Department. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents and its authorities to decide the representation dated 20.10.2010 Annexure P-3. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the inaction on the part of the Respondents are illegal and contrary to the Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively and further be directed to the Respondents to work and recruit the employees of Transport Department strictly as per Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively forthwith by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari. 10.5 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.6 Cost of the petition. 3. In view of the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner in this writ petition, Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not dispute that the petition essentially relates to a service matter. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 136, while warning the High Courts not to entertain 'Public Interest Litigations' in service matters, observed in para 7: 7. As noted supra, the 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 only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigations have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigations have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives. High 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.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, this Court held that in service matters PI Ls should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PI Ls 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 PI Ls, 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 as 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 Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts 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. 5. In view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 136 (Supra), present writ petition relating to service matter cannot be entertained as 'Public Interest Litigation'. 6. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.