KUSHUM LATAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                                 KUSHUMLATA

                           UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                   JULY 12, 2006
B
            [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]


          Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963; Rule 23:


c participate-Filing
        Auction of Mines of sand-One of the lenderers, not allowed to
                     of writ petition/Public Interest litigation-Dismissed by
    High Court--On appeal, Held: Petitioner has styled the writ petition as
    Public Interest Litigation though it relates to a tender where she herself
    claimed to be a tenderer-A petition on the same cause of action pending
    in the High Court wherein she is one of the parties-Under the circumstances,
D   High Court was fully justified in dismissing the petition styled as PIL.

          Public Interest litigation-Scope of-Discussed.

          Respondent No.4, an Authority, had issued a Notification in pursuance
    of Government Order under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
E   (Concession) Rules, 1963 for auction of mines of sand, boulders etc. The        ·~




    auction was postponed. The appellant, one of the tenderers, alleged that she
    was not allowed to participate in the auction in a malafide manner with a
    view to favour respondent No.5. A writ petition styled as Public Interest
    Litigation was filed by her praying for investigation into the alleged
F   irregularities. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the
    successful bidder was not a party to the Public Interest Litigation; and that
    the appellant cannot file the Public Interest Litigation when she herself
    claimed to be an intending bidder. Hence the present appeal.

         Appellant contended that the High Court erroneously proceeded on a
G highly technical basis without appreciating that the public interest was
    involved; and that the State's largesse was being given for a very paltry       ..,
    amount

         The respondents submitted that the High Court rightly observed that

H                                       462
                           KUSHUMLATA v. U.0.1.                              463
the petition though styled as a PIL was nothing but an attempt to misguide          A
the Court; that there was no public interest involved when the appellant herself
was an intending bidder; and that a group of persons, including the appellant,
have challenged the legality of the auction by filing a Writ Petition which is
pending in the High Court.

      Dismissing the appeal, the Court                                              B

       HELD: I.I. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in
the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of
wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons
to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge     C
and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by
unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person
acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public
interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court
to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or      D
any oblique consideration. 1467-B-C]

      The Janta Dal v. HS Chowdhary, 1199214 SCC 305 and Ka:;i Lhendup
Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 11994] Supp 2 SCC 116, relied on.

      1.2. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest   E
must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also
with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. 1467-D]

       Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR (1993) SC 852 and K.R.
Srinivas v. R.M Premchand, 11994] 6 SCC 620, relied on.
                                                                                    F
      Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (JV Edition) and Black's Law
Dictionary (Sixth Edition), referred to.

       1.3. 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,    G
vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an
effective weapon in the armory 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         H
    464                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A on personal vendetta. (469-F-Gl
          1.4. The 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 considerations.     ....   ~


    The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations
B   by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. (469-G-H; 470-AI

         Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 Report of the Council for Public Interest
    Law set up by Ford Foundation, referred to.

          1.5. The Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant;
C   the prima facie correctness or nature of information given hy him; the
    information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show
    gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between {wo
    conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and
    reckless allegations besmirching ~he character of others; and (ii) avoidance
D   of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
    oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court
    cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the
    guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere
    reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court
    has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or
E   meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They
    masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro
    Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own
    to protect. (470-E-F-Gl

          State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (199412 SCC 481; Andhra Pradesh
F State Financial Corporation v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR (1994)
    SC 2151 and Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265, referred
    to.

          1.6. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been
G indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real
    intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting
    valuable judicial time which could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine
    cases. (471-C-DI

          Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., AIR
H   (1999) SC 114, referred to.
                    KU SHUM LATA v. lJ.O.L [PASA YAT, lj                   465
       1.7. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous       A
petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right
direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of
the Courts.1471-H; 472-AI

      SP. Gupta v. Union of India, 119811 Supp. SCC 87; State of HP. v. A
Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors., I19851 3 SCC 169;          B
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 1200413 SCC 349; Dr. B. Singh
v. Union of India & Ors., 1200413 SCC 363 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v.
State of Maharashtra and Ors., (20051 I SCC 590, referred to.

       2. In the instant case, the appellant has styled the petition as Public     C
Interest Litigation, though it relates to a tender where she herself claims to
be a tenderer. In another petition, questioning legality of the auction, she is
a party. The High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition
styled as a PIL. It is clarified that Writ Petition No. 349/2003 which is stated
to be pending shall be considered in its own perspective in accordance with
law.. 1472-F]                                                                      D
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6527 of2004.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.2003 of High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 33910/2003.
                                                                                   E
      Sunil Kumar Jain for the Appellant.

       Rekha Pandey and Sushma Suri for the Respondent - Ministry of Home
Affairs.

     Krishan Mahajan, Kiran Bhardwaj, V.K. Verma, D.S. Mahra and M.P.              F
Shorawala for the Respondent Union of India.

      S.W.A. Qadri, Mohit Kumar, Pradeep Misra, Jitendra Mohan Sharma,
Shiv Sagar Tiwari and Ambar Qamaruddin for the Respondent - State of U.P.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                   G
      ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered
by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by which the Writ Petition
styled as Public Interest Litigation (in short 'PIL') was held to be not
maintainable and was dismissed.
                                                                                   H
    466                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A          In the writ petition the stand taken by the appellant was as follows:

           Respondent No.4 had issued a Notification on 20.11.2002 in pursuance
    of Government Order dated 2.11.2002 under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh
    Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (in short the 'Rules') for auction of
    mines of sand, boulders etc. located in the district of Saharanpur. As per the
B   Notification the auction was to be held on 23.12.2002, but the same was
    postponed to 30.12.2002. According to the appellant, she was permitted to
    take part in the auction on 23.12.2002 but subsequently she was not allowed
    to participate and with a view to favour respondent No.5, who was politically
    well connected, in a ma/a fide manner the auction was held. A writ petition
C   was filed styled as PIL for direction to the authorities for investigating into
    the alleged irregularities. The High Court noted that one Mohd. Iqbal was the
    successful bidder who was not a party in the PIL. In any event, the appellant
    cannot file the PIL when she herself claimed to be an intending bidder. The
    writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

D         In support of the appeal, it has been subrr.itted that the High Court
    erroneously proceeded on a highly technical basis without appreciating that
    the public interest was involved, the State's largesse was being given for a
    very paltry amount and, therefore, writ application should not have been
    dismissed.

E         Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the
    order stating that the High Court rightly observed that the petition though
    styled as a PIL was nothing but an attempt to misguide the Court. There was
    no public interest involved and in fact when the appellant was herself an
    intending bidder according to her own saying and as such the petition could
F   not have been maintained. Additionally, a group of persons have challenged
    the legality of the auction in Writ Petition No.349 of 2003 which is pending
    and the appellant is petitioner No. I I in the said writ petition.

            When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest
    litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition
G   is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present
    case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest
    aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important
    field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation"
    or "private i11terest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend
    "paise income litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand
H   belongs to the second category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted,
                     KUSHUMLATAv. U.0.1.[PASAYAT,J.]                             467
it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck               A
vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved
in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of
wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons
to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge
and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by                    B
unscrupulous· litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person
acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public
interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court
to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or
any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in               C
 The Janta Dal v. HS. Chowdhary, [ 1992] 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Do11i
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994] Supp 2 SCC 116. A writ petitioner
who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with
clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean
mind and clean objective. (See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR
( 1993) SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas v. R. M Premchand, (1994] 6 SCC 620).                   D
        It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest
litigation'. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest'
is defined thus:

        "Public Interest (I) a matter of public or general interest does not E
        mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of
        infonnation or amusement but that in which a class of the community
        have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights
        or liabilities are affected."

      In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as         F
follows:

        "Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by
        which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean
      · anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters         G
        in question. Interest shared by national government..:."

      In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public
interest litigation. In para 52 of the said judgment, after considering what is
public interest, has laid down as follows:

        "The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all H
    468                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of
            right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL"
            means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement
            of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of
            the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their      -
            legal rights or liabilities are affected."
B
          In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as
    follows:

            "Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of
            locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal
c           capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public
            action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily
            ascertained at the threshold."

          In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as
    follows:
D
            "While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all
            emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of
            this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound
            a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow
            its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome
E
            interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or
            concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique
            consideration."

          In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
F          "It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having
           sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus
           standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor
           and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but
           not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or
G          any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the
           colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal
           grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold".

         It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings
  initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise
H could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants.
                    KUSHUMLATA v. U.0.1. [PASAYAT,J.]                      469
Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept A
of PIL and extending our long ann of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the
oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated
and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented 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 B
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 o~ unauthorized collection of
tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention C
orders 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 D
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 E
administration of our judicial system.

       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 F
weapon in the armory 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 G
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 considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be
abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times
from Lehind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of
meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper H
    470                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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 busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the
    threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

          The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in
B USA defined the "public interest litigation" in its report of Public Interest Law,
    USA, 1976 as follows:

            "Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to
            efforts provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups
            and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition
c           that ordinary market place 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."

D         The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant;
    (b) the primafacie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the
    information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show
    gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two
    conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and
    reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of
E   public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
    oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the
    Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that
    under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon
    the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.
    The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies
F   or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They
    masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro
    Bono Pub/ico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their
    own to protect.

G         Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law
    from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering
    where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is
    against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v.
    Prabhu, [ 1994] 2 SCC 481, and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation
    v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR (1994) SC 2151. No litigant has
H   a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to
                    KUSHUMLATA v. U.0.1.[PASAYAT.J.)                        471
get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice         A
should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.
(See Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265). Today people
rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public
interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public.

       As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which B
though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It
is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called
public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately
be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public
 interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, C
yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining
such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above,
could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuil)e cases. Though in Dr.
Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., AIR (1999)
SC 114, this Court held that in service matters PlLs should not be entertained,
the inflow of so-called PI Ls involving service matters by competitors continue D
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 E
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. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the
real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out the truth
and motive behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, are
taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the F
petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It is also noticed that petitions
are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity.
As observed by th is Court in several cases newspaper reports do not
constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without
verifying their authenticity should normally be entertained. As noted above, G
such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of
statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable
for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs
as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions
filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
                                                                                   H
    472                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         In S.P. Gupta v. Union ofIndia, [1981] Supp. sec 87, it was emphatically
    pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL
    does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach
    the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left the
    following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24)

B              "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who
               approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and
               not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other
               oblique consideration. Tl)e court must not allow its process to be
               abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative
               action or to gain a political objective."
c
          In State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and
    Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 169, it has been said that public interest litigation is a
    weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection.

D         These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State
    a/West Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349, Dr. B. Singh v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [2004]
    3 SCC 363 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
    [2oos11 sec 590.

             In the instant case, the appellant has styled the petition as PIL though
E it relates to a tender where she herself claims to be a tenderer. In another
    petition, questioning. legality of the auction, she is a party. The High Court
    was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition styled as a PIL. We make
    it clear that Writ Petition No.349/2003 which is stated to be pending shall be
    considered in its own ,perspective in accordance with law. We express no
    opinion on the merits of the said writ petition.
F
             The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    S.K.S.                                                         Appeal dismissed.