Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 863 (ALL)

Rajpati Patel v. State of U. P.

2019-04-05

PANKAJ BHATIA, PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This public interest litigation has been preferred for the following relief:- "(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1,2 and 3 to make the enquiry of entire work of Gram Pradhan, respondent no. 4 and take legal action against accused persons." 2. If a Pradhan commits financial irregularity or misconduct, there is a statutory rule under the "U.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ (REMOVAL OF PRADHANS, UP PRADHANS AND MEMBERS) ENQUIRY RULES, 1997". The petitioner without taking recourse to remedy available to him has filed this PIL. We do not find the issue raised in this PIL of great public importance. We are of the view that such type of PIL should be discouraged. Recently, the Supreme Court has expressed its anguish in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and another, (2018) 6 SCC 72 . The court has held that the High Court should not entertain the public interest litigation which does not have any larger public interest. The relevant part of the judgment of Supreme Court is extracted below:- "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. 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. 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." 3. In the above case, the Supreme Court referred and followed the principle laid down by it in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402 , wherein the Court has revisited the entire law on public interest litigation. The Court has traced its origin in U.S. In 1976, Ford Foundation set up the Council for Public Interest Law. The Council in its Report defined the "Public Interest Litigation" in the following terms:- “27. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined "public interest litigation" in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows: "10....Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts providing legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others." (M/s Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 913 , para 19).” 4. As can be seen even in U.S., the public interest litigation primarily is meant for amongst other; (i) Providing legal representation to unrepresented people. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others." (M/s Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 913 , para 19).” 4. As can be seen even in U.S., the public interest litigation primarily is meant for amongst other; (i) Providing legal representation to unrepresented people. (ii) In the matter of environment (iii) racial and ethic minorities and others. The Supreme Court in above case after examining the contours its utility and importance, its position in other contours, also considered elaborately the issue whether public interest litigation should be encouraged or discouraged. The Court has struck a balance by laying down the law and issued following directions to preserve the purity and sanctity of public interest litigation. It is apposite to extract the directions, thus: “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. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts 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 Courts 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.” 5. In compliance of the above direction, this Court amended the High Court Rules, which reads as under:- “Chapter XXII Rule (3-A)-In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State. Explanatory Note.-The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in C.A. Nos. 1134-1135/02, State of Uttarakhand v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, has observed that the process of Court is frequently abused in the name of Public Interest Litigation and has directed all the High Courts to frame rules to prevent the same. The aforesaid amendment is intended to achieve the said objective.]” 6. In spite of the above amendment in High Court Rules, we find that in a large number of public interest litigation filed in this Court, no declarations are made in terms of the amended Rules. In such cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner either seeks the leave of Court to withdraw the petition to file fresh petition or seeks time to file supplementary affidavit. In such cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner either seeks the leave of Court to withdraw the petition to file fresh petition or seeks time to file supplementary affidavit. In both the events, the valuable judicial time of the Court is wasted apart from incurring unnecessary expenditure at the cost of poor litigants and wastage of resources. 7. Reverting to facts of present case, from the pleading and tenor of the writ petition, it appears to us that petition was not filed bonafidely by petitioner. Though, the parameters of public interest litigation have been settled in various cases of Supreme Court, yet we are entertaining the public interest litigation in a large number of cases of similar nature. The valuable judicial time can be utilized in deciding genuine and more important cases which are not taken up due to paucity of time. Easy access to justice is being abused as a licence to file misconduct and frivolous petition. A time has come when the frivolous public interest litigation be dealt with firmly. Most of the Court's time is consumed by petty and small matters, with the result Courts are unable to attend the more important matter which touch the personal liberty, environment and other cases complaining violation of fundamental rights and arbitrary action of State etc. A large number of the important cases become in-fructuous by passing of time. If this trend is not arrested soon the long delay in deciding the cases will erode the faith of people in Courts. 8. The Supreme Court way back in 1986 in the case of Varinderpal Singh v. M.R. Sharma, 1986 Supp SCC 719 had appealed the member of the Bar for their cooperation by not accepting such briefs. The Court observed thus:- “It is a pity that the time of this Court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such petitions. Perhaps many such petitions may be avoided if learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. I appeal to members of the Bar to realise that the great burden of dispensing justice is a burden which it is their duty to share and it is their duty to see that the burden should not be needlessly made unbearable. I appeal to members of the Bar to realise that the great burden of dispensing justice is a burden which it is their duty to share and it is their duty to see that the burden should not be needlessly made unbearable. The Judges of this Court 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. If we are not able to cooperate and set our house in order, the people to whom all of us are accountable will surely intervene and ask wiser men than us to tell us what is good for us all. Please do cooperate. The petition is dismissed accordingly.” 9. In Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112 , the Supreme Court has taken judicial note of growing tendency of litigant to rush to the Courts in small and petty matters. The Court has reiterated its anguish and unhappiness over the filing of frivlous petitioners. It has reminded the member of Bar about their role as an officer of the Court and not accepting briefs of a litigant who is engaged in senseless litigation. The Court noted thus:- "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. 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 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." 10. In Gurgaon Gramin Bank v Khazani and Another, (2012) 8 SCC 781 , the Supreme Court has expressed similar concern over rise in huge filing of the cases particularly frivolous matter. The Court observed that officials of Central Government, State Government and their instrumentality are also engaged in senseless litigation, which can be resolved by them outside of the Court. And in only those, where serious question of law of general importance arise which affects a large section of society or the stakes are high should come to the Court. 11. In view of the above clear enunciation of law in aforesaid judgments, we find that this case is not fit to entertain as a public interest litigation for the reasons recorded above. Accordingly, without adverting to issue raised by the petitioner, this public interest litigation is dismissed, leaving it open to petitioner to take recourse to such remedy which is available to him under the law.