Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1515 (ALL)

Rahul Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-05-31

P.K.S.BAGHEL, ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Since common question of law is involved in this batch of petitions thus they are being decided by this common judgment. However, for convenience the facts of the lead petition being Public Interest Litigation No. 1215 of 2019 are taken for consideration. 2. The petitioner in the said petition, PIL No. 1215 of 2019 has claimed that he is a public spirited person of mohalla Bhiti Chowk, District Mau. He has espoused the cause of general public of the aforesaid mohalla for protecting public utility land. Relief sought in the petition reads as under: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to 4 to remove the illegal encroachment/construction made by respondent No. 5 over the Arazi No. 985 area about 0.36 hectare situated at mohalla Bhiti Chowk, District Mau recorded as 'Nala (Nali Nalkoop) and road' in the revenue record." 3. It is stated that mohalla Bhiti Chowk was brought under the consolidation operation. Arazi No. 985 area 0.36 hectare which is situated in the said mohalla, was recorded as 'Nala (Nali Nalkoop) and road' in the revenue papers. The aforesaid land is covered under the provisions of Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 and the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. 4. It is alleged that the fifth respondent, who is a private person, has made illegal encroachment upon Arazi No. 985 area about 0.36 hectare, however the revenue authorities have not taken any action against the fifth respondent who has made illegal encroachment upon the public utility land. The petitioner has made an application dated 12.3.2019 regarding the said illegal encroachment, a copy of the application addressed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mau is on the record, however, the petitioner has not filed any receipt that the said representation has been received by the authority concerned. It is stated that inspite of the aforesaid application the respondents are not taking action to remove the illegal encroachment. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the authorities concerned have failed to remove the illegal encroachment hence the petitioner who is a public spirited person, has no other option but to approach this Court by the instant public interest litigation. 7. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the authorities concerned have failed to remove the illegal encroachment hence the petitioner who is a public spirited person, has no other option but to approach this Court by the instant public interest litigation. 7. We find that a large number of public interest litigation are filed in this Court for similar relief where the grievances are raised that private respondents have made encroachment on public utility land, chakroad (pathway), nali in villages as well as in Nagar Panchayats, municipalities and in Nagar Nigams. To illustrate the said fact we refer some of the reliefs of following public interest litigations filed in this Court: PIL No. 1216 of 2019 (Sarvjeet Verma v. State of U.P. and others): "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to enquire into the matter and remove immediately the encroachment of respondent No. 4 from the well (Kuwa), water pipeline (Nal) and the place of religious and other social work place, situated at Araji No. 677K, Village Jalauji Chak Rajman, P.S. & Tehsil Sikandarpur, District Ballia. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 19.3.2019 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition), within the period so fixed by this Hon'ble Court. PIL No. 1329 of 2019 (Mustaq Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others): (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the authorities concerned to restrain the trace passers as like respondent No. 8 and 9 for raising constructions over public utility land and to evict them from Araji No. 117(M), 124(M), 123(M), 125(M) Mauja Jhunsi Kohna, Tahsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj. PIL No. 1324 of 2019 (Bhoora @ Farookh and others v State of U.P. and others)- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to construct the nali from the house of Munnu Fakir to house of Idrish Pradhan in pursuance of proposal of the Gaon Sabha and sanction of the deep nali by the Government. PIL No. 1292 of 2019 (Paras Nath Kushwaha v State of U.P. and others): (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No. 2 to implement the order dated 31/08/2017 passed in Case No. 3/2010 (State v. Sant Lal and others) U/s 133 Cr.P.C. P.S.-Baresar, District-Ghazipur and remove the encroachment from drainage in question within stipulated time period. PIL No. 1268 of 2019 (Safeek Khan v. State of U.P. and others): (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents authorities to restrain the illegal construction in Gata No. 160 which is public Rasta in view of the representation dated 10.3.2019. PIL No. 1270 of 2019 (Girish Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others): A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to 4 to take legal action against the encroachers/private respondent Nos. 6 to 28 for removal of their illegal encroachment nuisance and obstruction over the Plots of "Charagaah/Lea" being Plot Nos. 30, 117, 118-Kha, 162, 164, 177, 441, 442, 471, 473, 475, 533 (12 Plots) total area as 2.1120 hectare situated at village Fareedpur Post Bandighat, Police Station and Tehsil Muhammadabad Gohna, district Mau expeditiously within a period so stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. PIL No. 1265 of 2019 (Afroz Tabassum v. State of U.P. and others): (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No. 2 to 3 to release the public hand pumps from the illegal possession of the respondent No. 4 to 11 to meet the ends of justice. PIL No. 1256 of 2019 (Ram Ashray @ Ram Asre v. State of U.P. and others). I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 2 i.e., District Magistrate, Prayagraj to take necessary action against the Gram Pradhan to make a construction of the Panchayat Bhawan and install the Hand Pump on the allotted Plot No. 163 Kha M, situated in the aforesaid village from his own money. PIL No. 1218 of 2019 (Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others): 1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to remove the encroachment & illegal possession of Res. PIL No. 1218 of 2019 (Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others): 1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to remove the encroachment & illegal possession of Res. No. 4 to 18 on Government Estate land being Gata No. 66/2 area 0.701 Hectare & Gata No. 67/2 area 0.440 Hectare situated in Mauja Araji Imlak, Tehsil-Kirawali, District-Agra. 2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to conduct high level inquiry against guilty persons who have facilitated in encroachment & illegal possession of Res. No. 4 to 18 on Government Estate land being Gata No. 66/2 area 0.701 Hectare & Gata No. 67/2 area 0.440 Hectare situated in Mauja Araji Imlak, Tehsil-Kirawali, District-Agra and take appropriate action against them so that the action of land grabbers may be discouraged. PIL No. 1226 of 2019 (Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. and others): 1-Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation/complaint dated 23-4-2019- and take effective action for removal of encroachment on the land of the P.W.D. situate in Arabpur Tehsil and District Fatehpur and ensure ejectment of encroachers forthwith. 2- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to take strict legal action against the respondent No. 4 and 5 and other encroachers of P.W.D. Land situate in Arabpur Tehsil and District Fatehpur. PIL No. 1219 of 2019 (Rajendra Pathak v. State of U.P. and others): (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to remove the encroachment from the Khasara No. 373 situated in village and post Gaura Tehsil Bhadohi District Bhadohi which is a state land. PIL No. 1224 of 2019 (Shiv Char an alias Prahalad v. State of U.P. and others): A- To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondents to perform their duties under the law and procedure and get vacated the Auction Platform (Nilami Chabutara) made in Mandi Esthal Etawah for the purpose of loading/unloading by the farmers bringing their product for sale and purchase. B- To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondents to perform their duties for vacating the auction platform (nilami chabutara) situated in Mandi Esthal Etawah within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and to take punitive action against the encroachers. C- To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondents to decide the petitioner's Application dated 12.4.2019 (Annexure No. 13 to the Writ Petition) within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 8. Before adverting to the issue raised in the aforementioned public interest litigations, it would be advantageous to have a look at the law laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of the scope of public interest litigation. The nature of public interest litigation is not adversarial litigation. One of the important cases entertained by the Supreme Court as a public interest litigation was way back in 1980 in Bhagalpur Blinding case, Kharti and others (II) v. State of Bihar and others, (1981) 1 SCC 627 and Kharti and others (IV) v. State of Bihar and others, (1981) 2 SCC 493 , where the Supreme Court has treated a letter as a public interest litigation. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others, (1997) 10 SCC 549 , a new dimension was given by the Supreme Court. The PIL was used as a new tool to the superior Courts to protect fundamental rights of poor masses who have no access to the Courts for redressal of their grievance. To meet that object, the principle of locus standi was relaxed. 9. The object of public interest litigation is to bring improvement for poor masses. The poor too have civil and political rights and the rule of law is meant for them also. The Court has noticed that if the fundamental right of the poor and helpless victim of injustice is sought to be enforced by public interest litigation, it is criticized by some champions of human rights as waste of time by the highest Court in law. The Court has extracted paragraph Nos. The Court has noticed that if the fundamental right of the poor and helpless victim of injustice is sought to be enforced by public interest litigation, it is criticized by some champions of human rights as waste of time by the highest Court in law. The Court has extracted paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the judgment in People's Union for Democratic Rights and others v. Union of India and others, (1982) 3 SCC 235 , in its judgment in the case of Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity & Rights of Sewerage & Allied Workers and others, (2011) 8 SCC 568 : "26. ......... 2....We wish to point out with all the emphasis at our command that public interest litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one making claim or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or resisting such relief. Public interest litigation is brought before the Court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed. That would be destructive of the rule of law which forms one of the essential elements of public interest in any democratic form of Government. The rule of law does not mean that the protection of the law must be available only to a fortunate few or that the law should be allowed to be prostituted by the vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo under the guise of enforcement of their civil and political rights. The poor too have civil and political rights and the rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in reality. The poor too have civil and political rights and the rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in reality. If the sugar barons and the alcohol kings have the fundamental right to carry on their business and to fatten their purses by exploiting the consuming public, have the chamars belonging to the lowest strata of society no fundamental right to earn an honest living through their sweat and toil? The former can approach the Courts with a formidable army of distinguished lawyers paid in four or five figures per day and if their right to exploit is upheld against the Government under the label of fundamental right, the Courts are praised for their boldness and courage and their independence and fearlessness are applauded and acclaimed. But, if the fundamental right of the poor and helpless victims of injustice is sought to be enforced by public interest litigation, the so-called champions of human rights frown upon it as waste of time of the highest Court in the land, which, according to them, should not engage itself in such small and trifling matters. Moreover, these self-styled human rights activists forget that civil and political rights, priceless and invaluable as they are for freedom and democracy, simply do not exist for the vast masses of our people. Large numbers of men, women and children who constitute the bulk of our population are today living a sub- human existence in conditions of abject poverty; utter grinding poverty has broken their back and sapped their moral fibre. They have no faith in the existing social and economic system. Public interest litigation, as we conceive it, is essentially a cooperative or collaborative effort on the part of the petitioner, the State or public authority and the Court to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable Sections of the community and to reach social justice to them. The State or public authority against whom public interest litigation is brought should be as much interested in ensuring basic human rights, constitutional as well as legal, to those who are in a socially and economically disadvantaged position, as the petitioner who brings the public interest litigation before the Court. The State or public authority against whom public interest litigation is brought should be as much interested in ensuring basic human rights, constitutional as well as legal, to those who are in a socially and economically disadvantaged position, as the petitioner who brings the public interest litigation before the Court. The State or public authority which is arrayed as a respondent in public interest litigation should, in fact, welcome it, as it would give it an opportunity to right a wrong or to redress an injustice done to the poor and weaker Sections of the community whose welfare is and must be the prime concern of the State or the public authority. 3. There is a misconception in the minds of some lawyers, journalists and men in public life that public interest litigation is unnecessarily cluttering up the files of the Court and adding to the already staggering arrears of cases which are pending for long years and it should not therefore be encouraged by the Court. This is, to our mind, a totally perverse view smacking of elitist and status quoist approach. Those who are decrying public interest litigation do not seem to realise that Courts are not meant only for the rich and the well-to-do, for the landlord and the gentry, for the business magnate and the industrial tycoon, but they exist also for the poor and the down-trodden, the have-nots and the handicapped and the half-hungry millions of our countrymen. So far the Courts have been used only for the purpose of vindicating the rights of the wealthy and the affluent. It is only these privileged classes which have been able to approach the Courts for protecting their vested interests. It is only the moneyed who have so far had the golden key to unlock the doors of justice...... No State has a right to tell its citizens that because a large number of cases of the rich and the well-to-do are pending in our Courts, we will not help the poor to come to the Courts for seeking justice until the staggering load of cases of people who can afford, is disposed of. The time has now come when the Courts must become the Courts for the poor and struggling masses of this country. They must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. The time has now come when the Courts must become the Courts for the poor and struggling masses of this country. They must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. They must be sensitised to the need of doing justice to the large masses of people to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heartless society for generations. The realisation must come to them that social justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and it is their solemn duty under the Constitution to enforce the basic human rights of the poor and vulnerable Sections of the community and actively help in the realization of the constitutional goals." (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402 the Supreme Court went elaborately into all the aspects including the origin and history of the Public Interest Litigation and has categorized the public interest litigation in three phases from origin to its current trend. The Court also considered various facets of public interest litigation, the backdrop of criticism from within and outside of the system. The Court has categorized the concept and development of public interest litigation in three phases in the following terms: "43. In this judgment, we would like to deal with the origin and development of public interest litigation. We deem it appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in three phases: Phase I.- It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and Sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this Court or the High Courts. Phase II.- It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments etc. etc. Phase III.- It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance." 11. In the cases, under Phase-I the Court has observed that "in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of marginalized, deprived and poor Section of society, the Court relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi and broaden the definition of aggrieved person and gave directions and orders". In the cases, under Phase-I the Court has observed that "in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of marginalized, deprived and poor Section of society, the Court relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi and broaden the definition of aggrieved person and gave directions and orders". The Court has further observed that "the Supreme Court and high Courts earned great respect and acquired great credibility in the eyes of public because of their innovative efforts to protect and preserve the fundamental rights of people belonging to poor and marginalized Section of society. 12. One of the essential aspects of the procedure laid down by the Court is that the person who approaches the Court has to show that he has no personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings. A large number of judgments and the directions of the Supreme Court in public interest litigation have benefited the downtrodden and marginalized Section of the society. 13. In the matter of Phase-I I deals with the protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forest, wildlife, rivers etc. Now there is a large number of judgments of the Supreme Court, where several important directions have been issued for protection of the environment. These judgments have gone long away to protect the environment and to deal with the problem of pollution and also to preserve the natural resources of the country. In the matter of environment, the Court has applied the doctrine of trust. This doctrine was enunciated in the present form by the U.S. Courts. It says that when the State holds a resource that is available for the use of public, the Court can exercise its power under the judicial review to scrutinize the fairness of the State's action while dealing with the natural resources. 14. In the third phase the Supreme Court has widen the horizon of public interest litigation for maintaining the probity, transparency and good governance. In a large number of petitions the Supreme Court has entertained petitions in respect of governance of the State. In the case of Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and others, (1987) 1 SCC 227 , the Court has taken a judicial note about falling standard of public morality. It was observed that "this Court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady decline of public standard or public morals and public morale. In the case of Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and others, (1987) 1 SCC 227 , the Court has taken a judicial note about falling standard of public morality. It was observed that "this Court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady decline of public standard or public morals and public morale. It is necessary to cleanse public life in the country alongwith or even before cleaning the physical atmosphere. The pollution in our values and standard is an equally grave menace as the pollution of environment, where such situations cry out, the Court should not and cannot remain mute and dumb. 15. After summarizing the law on all the three phases of the public interest litigation in nicety of detail the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), has observed as under: "31. According to our opinion, the public interest litigation is an extremely important jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Courts in a number of cases have given important directions and passed orders which have brought positive changes in the country. The Courts' directions have immensely benefited marginalized Sections of the society in a number of cases. It has also helped in protection and preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, etc. etc. The Court's directions to some extent have helped in maintaining probity and transparency in the public life. *** *** *** 87. ...The Court in that case gave emphasis that the directions of the Court should meet the requirements of public interest, environmental protection, elimination of pollution and sustainable development. While ensuring sustainable development, it must be kept in view that there is no danger to the environment or to the ecology. *** *** *** 143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the Courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with "oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions issued by the Courts. *** *** **** 148. The first category of cases is that where the Court on the filing of frivolous public interest litigation petitions, dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 758 , the Court concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts. *** *** *** 157. In Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281 , this Court observed as under: "10. '... 12. 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 cases of the 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 facing gallows under untold agony and 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, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. 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 glare of publicity, break the queue muffing 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 Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system.' " 158. The Court cautioned by observing that [Holicow case, (2007) 14 SCC 281 ]: "10.'... 13. 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 armorly 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.... *** *** *** 172. In M/s. Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 281 , this Court observed that the Judges who exercise the jurisdiction should be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of PIL, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity - seeking is not lurking. The Court should ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the Court. *** *** *** 181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other Courts in a number of judgments. The Court should ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the Court. *** *** *** 181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other Courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions: (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. *** *** *** (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations." 16. The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL, which has been filed for redressal of genuine public harm or public injury in the following matters: (i) Lack of probity in public life leading to degree of corruption; good governance, judicial review of administrative action; (ii) Environmental matters dealing with air pollution, water pollution, illegal mining, felling of trees, pollution of rivers etc.; the encroachment of public utility land such as Park and open space reserved in the town planning, forest land, illegal exploitation natural resources. (iii) Power of superior Courts to make investigation into the issue of public importance. (iv) Those PILs which involve larger public interest should be heard on priority basis. However, the Court has also opined that the frivolous petition must be dealt with firm hand and should be discouraged by imposing heavy cost. 17. (iii) Power of superior Courts to make investigation into the issue of public importance. (iv) Those PILs which involve larger public interest should be heard on priority basis. However, the Court has also opined that the frivolous petition must be dealt with firm hand and should be discouraged by imposing heavy cost. 17. Bearing in mind the principles and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in- the above noted cases, we find that this Court can broadly classify the following categories of public interest litigation which are generally filed in this Court: (i) for the removal of encroachments on public path mostly in villages or small towns; (ii) for compliance of the provisions of the Corporation Act, 1959; Municipalities Act, 1916, Town Area Act; Nagar Panchayat Act; RBO Act, 1958. In this category of public interest litigation, generally the reliefs are sought for the removal of encroachment; for the demolition of buildings which have been raised without proper sanction under the relevant Act and Byelaws. (iii) for the compliance of directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of removal of encroachment from the ponds. (iv) Environmental matters regarding illegal running of Brickkilns, felling of trees, water related problems. 18. Firstly, we will advert to the matters relating to the environment. As discussed above in the second phase of the PIL, the Supreme Court has issued a large number of directions in its various judgment. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others, (1996) 5 SCC 281 , the Court has observed that High Courts should shoulder responsibility to ensure that directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matters of protection of the environment are complied with by the authorities. The Court has further observed that High Courts are better placed to appreciate the problems of their geographical area. It is constitutional obligation of the Courts to protect the fundamental rights of the people. The Supreme Court has reminded the High Courts that it is their responsibility that in the cases where the directions of Supreme Court have ramification all over country, High Courts should ensure for compliance of those directions. Following discussion and conclusion are apt and relevant for our purpose: "41. With rapid industrialisation taking place, there is an increasing threat to the maintenance of the ecological balance. Following discussion and conclusion are apt and relevant for our purpose: "41. With rapid industrialisation taking place, there is an increasing threat to the maintenance of the ecological balance. The general public is becoming aware of the need to protect environment. Even though, laws have been passed for the protection of environment, the enforcement of the same has been tardy, to say the least. With the governmental authorities not showing any concern with the enforcement of the said Acts, and with the development taking place for personal gains at the expense of environment and with disregard of the mandatory provisions of law, some public-spirited persons have been initiating public interest litigations. The legal position relating to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts for preventing environmental degradation and thereby, seeking to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, is now well settled by various decisions of this Court. The primary effort of the Court, while dealing with the environmental-related issues, is to see that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws. The Courts, in a way, act as the guardian of the people's fundamental rights but in regard to many technical matters, the Courts may not be fully equipped. Perforce, it has to rely on outside agencies for reports and recommendations whereupon orders have been passed from time to time. Even though, it is not the function of the Court to see the day-to-day enforcement of the law, that being the function of the Executive, but because of the nonfunctioning of the enforcement agencies, the Courts as of necessity have had to pass orders directing the enforcement agencies to implement the law. 42. As far as this Court is concerned, being conscious of its constitutional obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the people, it has issued directions in various types of cases relating to the protection of environment and preventing pollution. For effective orders to be passed, so as to ensure that there can be protection of environment alongwith development, it becomes necessary for the Court dealing -with such issues to know about the local conditions. Such conditions in different parts of the country are supposed to be better known to the High Courts. For effective orders to be passed, so as to ensure that there can be protection of environment alongwith development, it becomes necessary for the Court dealing -with such issues to know about the local conditions. Such conditions in different parts of the country are supposed to be better known to the High Courts. The High Courts would be in a better position to ascertain facts and to ensure and examine the implementation of the anti-pollution laws where the allegations relate to the spreading of pollution or non-compliance of other legal provisions leading to the infringement of the anti-pollution laws. For a more effective control and monitoring of such laws, the High Courts have to shoulder greater responsibilities in tackling such issues which arise or pertain to the geographical areas within their respective States. Even in cases which have ramifications all over India, where general directions are issued by this Court, more effective implementation of the same can, in a number of cases, be effected, if the High Courts concerned assume the responsibility of seeing to the enforcement of the laws and examine the complaints, mostly made by the local inhabitants, about the infringement of the laws and spreading of pollution or degradation of ecology." (Emphasis supplied) 19. A perusal of the above judgment would lead to conclusion that the High Courts should ensure strict compliance of the orders of Supreme Court where there is inaction on the part of law enforcing authorities to implement the orders of Supreme Court. 20. Now we will deal with only those matters in respect of which a large numbers of PILs are filed in this Court. (i) Public probity in governance.-The principle of public accountability and performance of the public duty and public obligation are bedrock of good administration. The principles of public accountability and transparency in State action was considered by a Three Judge Bench in the case of Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another, (1998) 1 SCC 226 . The Court observed that holders of public offices are entrusted the powers for the public interest alone. If the conduct of public official amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and appropriate action should be taken to uphold the rule of law. Paragraph Nos. 55 & 56 are apposite for our purposes. "55. The Court observed that holders of public offices are entrusted the powers for the public interest alone. If the conduct of public official amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and appropriate action should be taken to uphold the rule of law. Paragraph Nos. 55 & 56 are apposite for our purposes. "55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a. prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. 56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank who have warned that future aid to underdeveloped countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. Increasing corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. The need to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is not unknown in other countries: R. v. Secy., of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1995) 1 WLR 386 ." In the case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and others, (2006) 3 SCC 549 , the Court has categorized three types of restrictions by the public trust doctrine: (1) the property must be available for the use of general public and it must not only be used for public purpose; (2) the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent; (3) the property must be maintained for particular types of use; (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources. In Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2011) 9 SCC 354 , the Supreme Court considered at length the doctrine of "full faith and credit" which applies to the act done by the officer in the hierarchy of the State. The Court observed "the principle of public accountability and transparency in such action are applicable to the cases of executive or statutory exercise of power, besides requires that such action does not lack bona fides. All these principles enunciated by the Court over a passage of time clearly mandate that the public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible action. Emphasis supplied If what ought to have been done, is not done, responsibility should be fixed on the erring officers, the real public purpose of an answerable administration would be satisfied. The Court in Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. (supra) has further observed: "216. The doctrine of "full faith and credit" applies to the acts done by the officers. There is a presumptive evidence of regularity in official acts, done or performed, and there should be faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Avoidance and delay in decision making process in government hierarchy is a matter of growing concern. Sometimes delayed decisions can cause prejudice to the rights of the parties besides there being violation of the statutory rule. *** *** *** 218. Avoidance and delay in decision making process in government hierarchy is a matter of growing concern. Sometimes delayed decisions can cause prejudice to the rights of the parties besides there being violation of the statutory rule. *** *** *** 218. ...The adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of public duties can result in varied defects, not only in the decision-making process but in the final decision as well. Every officer in the hierarchy of the State, by virtue of his being "public officer" or "public servant", is accountable for his decisions to the public as well as to the State. This concept of dual responsibility should be applied with its rigours in the larger public interest and for proper governance." The Supreme Court in the case of Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil (supra) has taken a judicial note. Relevant part of the said judgment reads as under: "51. This Court cannot be oblivious that there has been a steady decline of public standards or public morals and public morale. It is necessary to cleanse public life in this country alongwith or even before cleaning the physical atmosphere. The pollution in our values and standards in (sic is) an equally grave menace as the pollution of the environment. Where such situations cry out the Courts should not and cannot remain mute and dumb." (ii) Environmental Matters in respect of air and noise pollution, felling of trees, production of natural resources, water, minor and minerals.-In the matter of environment also the public interest litigation should be encouraged. In the case of M C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others, (1997) 1 SCC 388 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "23. The notion that the public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristic is finding its way into the law of the land. The need to protect the environment and ecology has been summed up by David B. Hunter (University of Michigan) in an article titled An ecological perspective on property : A call for judicial protection of the public's interest in environmentally critical resources published in Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol. 12 1988, p. 311 is in the following words: "Another major ecological tenet is that the world is finite. The earth can support only so many people and only so much human activity before limits are reached. 12 1988, p. 311 is in the following words: "Another major ecological tenet is that the world is finite. The earth can support only so many people and only so much human activity before limits are reached. This lesson was driven home by the oil crisis of the 1970s as well as by the pesticide scare of the 1960s. The current deterioration of the ozone layer is another vivid example of the complex, unpredictable and potentially catastrophic effects posed by our disregard of the environmental limits to economic growth. The absolute fitness of the environment, when coupled with human dependency on the environment, leads to the unquestionable result that human activities will at some point be constrained. '[H]uman activity finds in the natural world its external limits. In short, the environment imposes constraints on our freedom; these constraints are not the product of value choices but of the scientific imperative of the environment's limitations. Reliance on improving technology can delay temporarily, but not forever, the inevitable constraints. There is a limit to the capacity of the environment to service... growth, both in providing raw materials and in assimilating by-product wastes due to consumption. The largesse of technology can only postpone or disguise the inevitable.' Professor Barbara Ward has written of this ecological imperative in particularly vivid language: 'We can forget moral imperatives. But today the morals of respect and care and modesty come to us in a form we cannot evade. We cannot cheat on DNA. We cannot get round photosynthesis. We cannot say I am not going to give a damn about phytoplankton. All these tiny mechanisms provide the preconditions of our planetary life. To say we do not care is to say in the most literal sense that "we choose death".' There is a commonly-recognized link between laws and social values, but to ecologists a balance between laws and values is not alone sufficient to ensure a stable relationship between humans and their environment. Laws and values must also contend with the constraints imposed by the outside environment. Unfortunately, current legal doctrine rarely accounts for such constraints, and thus environmental stability is threatened. Historically, we have changed the environment to fit our conceptions of property. We have fenced, plowed and paved. The environment has proven malleable and to a large extent still is. Laws and values must also contend with the constraints imposed by the outside environment. Unfortunately, current legal doctrine rarely accounts for such constraints, and thus environmental stability is threatened. Historically, we have changed the environment to fit our conceptions of property. We have fenced, plowed and paved. The environment has proven malleable and to a large extent still is. But there is a limit to this malleability, and certain types of ecologically important resources - for example, wetlands and riparian forests -- can no longer be destroyed without enormous long-term effects on environmental and therefore social stability. To ecologists, the need for preserving sensitive resources does not reflect value choices but rather is the necessary result of objective observations of the laws of nature. In sum, ecologists view the environmental sciences as providing us with certain laws of nature. These laws, just like our own laws, restrict our freedom of conduct and choice. Unlike our laws, the laws of nature cannot be changed by legislative fiat; they are imposed on us by the natural world. An understanding of the laws of nature must therefore inform all of our social institutions." (iii) Public amenities: The public interest litigation should also be encouraged in the matter concerning the public amenities due to growing population of the country. The open land/spaces reserved for public amenities are being encroached by unscrupulous persons in connivance with the authorities who look the other way at such encroachment. In some cases, the statutory offices deviate from the master plan and tries to convert open/public spaces for the benefit of private builders, rich and influential persons, who put pressure on the law enforcing authorities and statutory authorities to bend the law in their favor. The Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 3 SCC 619 , has taken note of the present trend. The Supreme Court has observed as under: "209. Yet, as we have seen from the earlier judgments concerning the public amenities in Bangalore (Bangalore Medical Trust, (1991) 4 SCC 54 ) and Lucknow [M.I. Builders (P) Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 464 ], and now as is seen in this case in Pune, the spaces for the public amenities are under a systematic attack and are shrinking all over the cities in India, only for the benefit of the landowners and the builders. Time has therefore come to take a serious stock of the situation. Undoubtedly, the competing interest of the landowner is also to be taken into account, but that is already done when the plan is finalized, and the landowner is compensated as per the law. Ultimately when the land is reserved for a public purpose after following the due process of law, the interest of the individual must yield to the public interest. " We are constrained to observe that in this state, there appears to be an unholy nexus between administration and builders to convert the land use contrary to Master plan and Zonal plan. For illustration, in Prayagraj (Allahabad) the Master plan was notified in the year 2005 but even after 19 years zonal plans for the entire city have not been notified by the State Government. Taking advantage of this situation, most of the residential areas of city have been converted in commercial area. If the space is reserved for public amenities it cannot be allowed to be allotted to the builders or powerful persons against the alleged development plan. The land, open spaces or parks cannot be converted or encroached. The Supreme Court in the case Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and others, (1991) 4 SCC 54 , and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others, (1999) 6 SCC 464 , has taken a strict view in the matter of violation of Master Plan/Zonal Plan. We also find that a large number of PILs are filed in service matters and against policy decision of the State. It is trite that in service matters, PILs are not entertainable. Similarly, in policy matter also Court can interfere on very limited grounds. (iv) Policy Matters: In respect of policy matters, the Supreme Court in the case of BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 SCC 333 , has held that "in the sphere of economic policy or reform, the Court is not appropriate forum. Every matter of the public interest or curiosity cannot be subject matter of PIL. The Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of country. The Courts will interfere only if there is clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or noncompliance by the States with its constitutional or its statutory duties". Every matter of the public interest or curiosity cannot be subject matter of PIL. The Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of country. The Courts will interfere only if there is clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or noncompliance by the States with its constitutional or its statutory duties". In the case of Union of India and others v. JD. Suryavanshi, (2011) 13 SCC 167 , the Supreme Court has quoted with approval its earlier view in the case of The Directorate of Film Festivals and others v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others, (2007) 4 SCC 737 , in the following terms: "9. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737 , this Court held: (SCC p. 746, para 16) "16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are Courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review....". (v) Service Matters: The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 SCC 273 , has held that in service matters a public interest litigation should not be entertained. The Supreme Court in the case of Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2005) 5 SCC 136 , has observed that though the Supreme Court has laid down the law in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu (supra) that "so called Public Interest Litigations should not be entertained but the PILs involving service matters continue unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained". The Court has held that "the least the High Court could do is to throw them out on the basis of said decision. Duryodhan Sahu (supra) that "so called Public Interest Litigations should not be entertained but the PILs involving service matters continue unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained". The Court has held that "the least the High Court could do is to throw them out on the basis of said decision. Relevant part of the judgment in Gurpal Singh (supra) is extracted below: "7. ...Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273 , this Court held that in service matters PILs should not 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 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." 21. Now coming back to the cases on hand, we find that in this batch of public interest litigations, the only relief is in respect of removal of encroachment from public utility land, illegal construction etc. We have extracted the prayer of all the public interest litigations in the earlier part of this judgment. 22. A perusal of the reliefs sought by the petitioners it is evident that the grievances are raised against the private respondents who have made encroachment over the public utility land, pathways (chakroads), encroachment of drains (nali) etc. etc. 23. Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with public nuisance. Relevant part of Section 133 reads as under : "133. etc. 23. Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with public nuisance. Relevant part of Section 133 reads as under : "133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance.-(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers- (a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or (b)......... (c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion conflagration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or (d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or (e)......... (f)......... such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order- (i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or (ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or (iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building, or to alter the disposal of such substance; or (iv)......... (v)......... (vi)......... (2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this Section shall be called in question in any Civil Court." 24. A perusal of Section 133 shows the jurisdiction which is exercised by the Magistrate to deal with public nuisance. This power can be exercised by the Magistrate on the police report or other information. (v)......... (vi)......... (2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this Section shall be called in question in any Civil Court." 24. A perusal of Section 133 shows the jurisdiction which is exercised by the Magistrate to deal with public nuisance. This power can be exercised by the Magistrate on the police report or other information. The Magistrate can issue the order for removal of nuisance and if he finds that the dispute is of the civil nature, the Magistrate has to refer the matter to the civil Court. The word 'other information' can be entertained by the Magistrate of an individual or any person who is aggrieved from the public nuisance. The power under Section 133 can be used for removal of obstruction raised on municipal drain and from the public pathway of the village. 25. Similarly, under the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 also the Tehsildar has power for removal of obstacle for free use of a public road, path or common land of a village or obstruction or water-course or source of water. Section 26 of the Act reads as under: "26. Removal of obstacle.-If the Tahsildar finds that any obstacle impedes the free use of a public road, path or common land of a village or obstructs the road or water course or source of water, he may direct the removal of such obstacle and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may recover the cost of such removal from the person concerned in the manner prescribed." 26. The aforesaid two provisions clearly demonstrate that for the removal of encroachment of pathways, streets, a citizen has efficacious alternative remedy by approaching the competent authority under the aforesaid two Acts. In most of such cases, we find that the petitioners without pursuing remedy under abovementioned Acts approach this Court by way of public interest litigation for a direction against a person individual. These huge number of public interest litigations waste valuable judicial time of this Court. 27. Accordingly, we are of the view that in the matter of removal of encroachment of pathways, drains etc., statutory remedy is available to the persons under the Criminal Procedure Code, the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and under the Acts which govern the local bodies, Nagar Nigams, Municipal Corporations, Nagar Panchayats, Municipalities etc. etc. 27. Accordingly, we are of the view that in the matter of removal of encroachment of pathways, drains etc., statutory remedy is available to the persons under the Criminal Procedure Code, the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and under the Acts which govern the local bodies, Nagar Nigams, Municipal Corporations, Nagar Panchayats, Municipalities etc. etc. hence the public interest litigation ordinarily should not be entertained. If there is inaction on the part of statutory authorities, the aggrieved person can approach to this Court for appropriate direction but not by way of PIL. 28. The Supreme Court has time and again emphasized the view that in the matter of frivolous petitions a heavy cost should be imposed. In the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112 and in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470 , the Supreme Court has held that "the judicial system is grossly afflicted by frivolous litigation". Some solution has to be evolved to deter the litigant to approach this Court in respect of ill-considered and senseless litigation. It has to be born in mind that in every such litigation, there is an innocent sufferer. The Court has castigated the State agencies also who litigate endlessly up to the Supreme Court. The attitude of the State functionaries is due to lack of responsibility to take decisions. The Supreme Court has held that such frivolous and petty matters should be dealt with iron hands and heavy costs should be imposed as encouraging such type of litigation is hampering the cause of justice. We may in this regard gainfully refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chandra (supra): "12. All these are aberrations in the functioning of the Apex Court of any country. Of late, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the Courts, including this Court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the Court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. It is a pity that the time of the Court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the Court and who are expected to assist the Court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done. 13. It is high time that the Courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on the learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner. {Vide Varinderpal Singh v. MR Sharma, 1986 Supp SCC 719; Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 and Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani, (2012) 8 SCC 781 : AIR 2012 SC 2881 .}" 29. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and another, (2018) 6 SCC 72 , has considered the misuse of PIL jurisdiction. The Court observed thus: "98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which Courts must devote to genuine causes. This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which Courts must devote to genuine causes. This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the Court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the Court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space." 30. On careful consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the abovementioned case laws and for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that all the above mentioned public interest litigations lack merit. As discussed above, the petitioners have approached this Court in petty matters or in some cases they have efficacious alternative remedy. Entertaining these petitions shall be wastage of precious judicial time. As discussed above, the petitioners have approached this Court in petty matters or in some cases they have efficacious alternative remedy. Entertaining these petitions shall be wastage of precious judicial time. There are large number of pending PILs relating to protection of environment, in the matter of cleansing the public life, breach of public trust doctrine, converting the public utility services for private use of builders etc., those genuine PILs are pending for years together and some of them are becoming infructuous as most of the judicial time is wasted in dealing with a large number of fresh PILs raising the issues on small matters which do not raise the issues of public importance. Hence, time has come when this Court should discourage frivolous and petty matters. 31. Accordingly, the public interest litigations are dismissed. However, we make it clear that dismissal of these public interest litigations shall not cause any prejudice to the cause espoused therein. It is left open to the petitioners to work out other remedy available under the law. No order as to costs.