Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5671 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2007
BENCH:
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P . SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of
the Patna High Court disposing the writ petition filed by the respondent
No.1 styled as a "Public Interest Litigation". The order gave certain
directions and nullifying certain allotments of land made in favour of
respondent No.5. In the writ petition action of the State Government of
Bihar in granting appellant through its Director Prakash Jha land pieces in
the Industrial areas in Patna, Hajipur, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Buxar.
The writ petitioner alleged that the said Prakash Jha, Director of present
appellant who was respondent No.5 in the writ petition was given land in
return of services rendered by him to help the present Chief Minister to
win last assembly elections. It was alleged that the action of the
Government amounted to doling out valuable State property as largess at
throw away prices for political considerations.
3. The writ petition was filed, and was claimed to be, in public interest.
The respondent described himself as the Chief Spokesperson of the Indian
National Congress, a recognized political party. His party contested the
previous election in alliance with the party that was in power at that
time. The alliance got worsted in the election and Congress party was
returned as a poor fourth. Respondent no.5 is a private limited company; it
is represented through a person who is well-known as a film-maker but who
also takes part in electoral politics. In the supplementary affidavit filed
by the petitioner, it was stated that Prakash Jha had fought the 2004 Lok
Sabha Election from the Bettiah Lok Sabha Constituency. It is further
stated that in. the last assembly election held in October-November, 2005
though not a candidate himself, he addressed public meetings jointly with
the present Chief Minister in various parts of the State. As both the
petitioner and said Prakash Jha are political persons, it is not surprising
that the pleadings are heavy with political invectives.
4. In the writ petition, it was stated that the Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") has
given large areas of land at various places to respondent no.5 at throwaway
prices. It was further stated that allotments of land were made to
respondent no.5 without issuing any notice, inviting competitive bids, and
the land areas were granted to respondent no.5 at very cheap rates without
following the established norms and procedure. According to him the market
value of the said land plosts was much higher. For instance, in Patliputra
Industrial Area, Patna one acre land was given to respondent no.5 for
Rs.14,65,000.00. This piece of land should have fetched the State about
rupees five crores if allotments were to be made on the basis of
competitive bidding. It was also stated that in a blatant show of favour,
respondent no.5 was also given the Authority’s Office building along with
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
the land in Patliputra Industrial Area. The favour was crowned by putting a
very low value for the building. It was also alleged that the action of the
State Government/Authority in granting to respondent no.5 land at different
places was an act of malafide and called for institution of criminal cases
against the concerned people and an investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation.
5. The writ petition, in brief, made three allegations. (i) land plots were
given to respondent no.5 at different places in the. State without issuing
any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of those
land plots, (ii) the allotment -was made without following any norms or
procedure and (iii) the action of the State Government caused heavy loss to
the State; the action was based on political considerations and was,
therefore, malafide.
6. The respondents in the writ petition questioned bonafides of the writ
petitioner. They took the stand that there was nothing illegal and the
entire action was bonafide in the greater interests of the State. It was
pointed out that the malafides of the writ petitioner are clear from the
fact that the writ petitioner did not question legality of the action of
the then State Government who had in the year 1996 allotted the land in the
Patliputra Industrial areas to one M/s Dynax Digital Studio (Ind) Pvt. Ltd.
for consideration of Rs.5.5 lakhs. The allotment made was subsequently
cancelled and the consideration for allotment was fixed by raising the land
value at the rate of 10% only as provided in Govt. letter dated 17.7.1982.
It was also submitted that the petition was an abuse of Public Interest
Litigation and deserves to be rejected outright.
7. After referring to the various stands, ultimately, the High Court came
to observe that there was more than what met the eye and the allotment of
land plots to respondent no.5 was done in a thoroughly irregular manner and
the allotments are completely untenable. So far as the charge of malafides
is concerned the State’s submission was accepted by giving "benefit of
doubt". It was, however, observed that the authorities were in a hurry to
go for private investment and that might have led to non-observance to some
of the official norms was held to be completely unacceptable. The writ
petition was disposed of with following observations and directions.
"In the facts and circumstances discussed above, I reject the
allegation of malafide. But at the same time, I am unable to accept
the submission that the Court should not interfere in the matter
because the writ petition may not qualify as Public Interest
Litigation. In view of the facts coming to its notice, the only
proper course for the Court is to intervene and to set things
right. I therefore, feel constrained to interfere with the
allotments made by the Authority in favour of respondent No.5. All
the allotments of lands made in favour of respondent No. 5 are
accordingly quashed. The Authority is directed to resume possession
of the lands. It will be open to respondent no. 5 to make fresh
applications with proper Project Reports and supporting documents
for allotment of lands to it at different centres. In case such
applications made, the authority shall consider them in accordance
with las and take a decision on those applications within three
months of the date of their receipt in its office. It will be open
to respondent No.5 either to get back all its money deposited with
the Authority or in case it makes fresh applications to wait till
the final decision on those applications is taken by the Authority.
This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations
and directions. There will be no order as to costs."
8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that there was complete violation of principles of natural justice in the
instance case. The High Court’s observations were contrary to the materials
on record. The High Court appears to have based its conclusions on a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
reading of the files without any opportunity to either the authorities or
the State Government and in any event not to the present appellant to
explain the fact situation. If the High Court had any doubt about any
aspect which according to it was relevant, opportunity in that regard
should have been given. Unfortunately that has not been done. It is pointed
out that the High Court has rightly rejected the stand of the writ
petitioner about malafides. That was sufficient to through out the writ
petition at the threshold. Instead of that the High Court referred to the
records and came to conclusions finding alleged discrepancies without grant
of opportunity. The conclusions are contrary to the materials available and
in any event the High Court ought not to have relied solely on the counter
affidavits filed which were in fact replies to the averments made in the
writ petition. Most of the conclusions of the High Court related to aspects
which were not even pleaded in the writ petition. That being so, there was
no scope for the respondents in the writ petition to throw any light on
aspects which ultimately were taken note of by the High Court. It is
pointed out that the writ petitioner himself accepted that he was a
functionary of a political party. The petition is nothing but political
vendata unleashed.
9. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and the Authority supported the
stand taken by the appellant. On the contrary the respondent No.1-writ
petitioner submitted that merely because the High Court has given the
"benefit of doubt" to the State Government, it could not have closed eyes
to the apparent illegalities which a bare perusal of the records revealed.
The State and the Authorities, it is submitted, filed affidavits taking
contrary stands. Stand which was stated in one affidavit was subsequently
departed from.
10. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public
interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal
disputes, the said petition 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 interest
litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise
income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes
also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck 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 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 The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary,
[1992] 4 SCC 305, and Kazi Lhendup Dorji 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].
11. 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 (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean
that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information
or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected."
12. In Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined
as 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 in
question. Interest shared by national government...."
13. 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 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."
14. 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
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."
15. In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as
follows:
"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 interloper or wayfarer or
officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal
gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."
16. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
"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 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".
17. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings
initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the time which
otherwise could have been spent for disposal of 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, 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 millions of rupees and criminal cases in which
persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
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. 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.
18. 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 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 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 behind. Some persons with vested
interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by
force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal
as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win
notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to
be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with
exemplary costs.
19. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in
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 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."
20. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the
applicant; (b) the prima facie 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 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 meddlesome
interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
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.
21. 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.
M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR (1994) SC 2151,. No litigant has a
right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to
get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice
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.
22. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though
titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is
shocking to note that Courts are flooded with 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, 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 genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on
newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As
observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute
evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying
their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, 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.
23. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1981] Supp. SCC 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)
"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. The court must not allow its process to be abused by
politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain
a political objective."
24. 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.
25. These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of
West Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
[2004] 3 SCC 363 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. [2005] 1 SCC 590.
26. It is true that in certain cases even though the Court comes to the
conclusion that the writ petition was not in a public interest, yet if it
finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter further in greater
public interest, it can be done. This can be done by keeping the writ
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
petitioner out of picture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be
done in exceptional cases and not in a routine manner.
27. It is true as contented by learned counsel for the appellant that the
High Court’s conclusions were drawn after going through the files. It is
apparent from records that the High Court did not ask the parties to
clarify any doubt it entertained as regards certain crucial aspects. These
aspects assume considerable importance because they have formed the
foundation of the High Court’s conclusions about irregularity/illegality in
allotment.
28. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the High Court and remit
the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say the parties shall
be permitted to place material in support of their respective stand, in
addition to those which are already on record and the High Court shall
thereafter take a decision in the matter within four weeks. Further
affidavits shall be filed with all relevant details/documents by the
parties. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
29. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.