VIJAY SINGH SHERON vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB]
Reportable
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
Judgment reserved on : 28.10.2026
Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on 3.11.2026
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1153/2024
CNR: RJHC010056572024 | URN: CW / 2422U / 2024
Vijay Singh Sheron S/o Shri Lal, Aged About 39 Years, C/o Shri
Andaram Patel, Near Main Temple, Lordi Panditji Village, Karwar,
Jodhpur-342307 (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Higher Education, State Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road,
Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Chancellor, Sardar Patel University Of Police, Security
And Criminal Justice, Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary,
Government House, Civil Lines, Jaipur.
4. Sardar Patel University Of Police, Security And Criminal
Justice, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar, Near Main Temple,
Lordi Panditji Village, Karwar, Jodhpur-342307.
5.
University Grants Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Bahdurshad Zafar Marg New Delhi-111002.
6.
Dr. Alok Tripathi, Vice-Chancellor, Sardar Patel University
of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur, Near
Main Temple, Lordi Panjitji, Village Karwar, Jodhpur-
342307
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(2 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma with
Ms. Mamta Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Venkat Poonia
Mr. Ravindra Jala for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
Mr. Akshay Nagori
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
BY THE COURT: (PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. The present public interest litigation has been preferred by
the petitioner assailing the constitutional validity of Section 11(1)
of the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal
Justice, Jodhpur Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012), which received
the assent of the His Excellency the Governor on 14.10.2012, as
well as the legality and validity of the advertisement dated
12.12.2023, issued for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor
of the respondent-University.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Section 11(1) Sardar
Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur
Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2012’) does not
prescribe the requisite eligibility criteria for appointment to the
post of Vice-Chancellor and, allegedly, fails to ensure compliance
with the regulations framed by the University Grants
Commission,2018. It is contended that the provision confers
unguided discretion upon the Chancellor to appoint a person as
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(3 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
Vice-Chancellor without adherence to the requisite academic
qualifications and eligibility conditions prescribed under the
applicable regulatory framework. On these grounds, the petitioner
has questioned the validity of the statutory provision and the
consequential advertisement as being arbitrary and contrary to
the applicable legal framework and consequently, the prayer has
been made for removal of respondent No.6 from the post of Vice
Chancellor of the Sardar Patel University of Police.
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
raised a preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability
of the writ petition on the account of non-disclosure of the
pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner in the wake of
Rule 385F of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952.
4. After raising of the preliminary objection by the learned
counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has made the following submissions:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent
No. 6, who is presently holding the post of Vice-Chancellor of
Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice,
Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent-University’),
does not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed under the
University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.
Consequently, the petitioner has instituted the present writ
petition seeking writ of quo warranto , challenging the legality of
the appointment of respondent No. 6 to the said post.
6. Learned counsel submitted that a writ of quo warranto can
be maintained at the instance of any person and that the
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(4 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
petitioner is not required to establish any personal interest or
locus standi for invoking such jurisdiction. In support of his
submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal
Jaiswal , reported in AIR 2013 SC 78 . He contended that the
appointment of respondent No. 6 to the post of Vice-Chancellor is
contrary to the eligibility criteria prescribed under Regulation
7.3(ii) and (iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
7. Elaborating upon the aforesaid contention, learned counsel
submitted that, as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person
appointed as Vice-Chancellor must be a distinguished academician
possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and
institutional commitment, with a minimum of ten years'
experience as a Professor in a University or ten years' experience
in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organization. However, respondent No. 6, Dr. Alok
Tripathi, possesses only an undergraduate degree of Bachelor of
Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) and does not have
the requisite minimum ten years' experience as a Professor in any
University or College, nor does he possess the requisite
experience in an equivalent academic or research administrative
position. He further contended that, merely on the basis of an
undergraduate degree in the field of medicine, respondent No. 6
cannot be regarded as a distinguished academician possessing the
qualifications and experience contemplated under the aforesaid
Regulations. Thus, respondent No. 6 is wholly ineligible to hold the
office of Vice-Chancellor under the UGC Regulations, 2018.
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(5 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
8. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that respondent No.
6 is a person who is not legally entitled to hold the public office of
Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, the respondent-State has
committed a grave illegality in appointing him to the said post. He
submitted that the appointment of respondent No. 6, being in
contravention of the statutory eligibility requirements prescribed
under the UGC Regulations, 2018, is liable to be declared illegal
and unsustainable in law.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the criminal cases
pending against the petitioner have been instituted at the instance
of respondent No.6, who is allegedly harbouring personal
animosity towards the petitioner. He submitted that the criminal
cases instituted against the petitioner are false and baseless and
have been initiated with an ulterior motive. Therefore, the
pendency of such cases cannot be construed as a disqualification
or a ground to prevent the petitioner from instituting the present
public interest litigation challenging the appointment of
respondent No. 6, Dr. Alok Tripathi.
10. With regard to the disclosure of criminal antecedents,
learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not required to
furnish particulars of the pending criminal cases in the present
petition, as the same had allegedly been instituted by respondent
No. 6 himself. Learned counsel further submitted that, since the
present petition is in the nature of a writ of quo warranto , there is
no requirement to disclose such particulars in terms of Rule 385-F
of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952.
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(6 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
11. Learned counsel also challenged the constitutional validity of
Section 11(1) of the Act of 2012. He submitted that Section 11(1)
of the Act of 2012, which empowers the Chancellor to appoint a
person from any discipline as the Vice-Chancellor of the
respondent-University without prescribing any specific eligibility
criteria, is ultra vires to the Regulation 7.3(ii) and (iii) of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, and is, therefore, illegal and invalid. He
submitted that the absence of prescribed eligibility criteria under
the aforesaid provision enables the appointment of a person who
may not possess the requisite academic qualifications, experience
and institutional competence necessary for holding the office of
Vice-Chancellor, particularly in a specialized institution such as the
respondent-Police University. Such an appointment, according to
learned counsel, would defeat the very objects and purposes for
which the University was established, as envisaged under Section
5 of the Act of 2012.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the process initiated
for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor was also contrary
to the UGC Regulations, 2018, as well as the directions issued by
His Excellency the Governor of the State of Rajasthan vide
communication dated 09.03.2017, whereby specialized and
professional Universities in the State were directed to adhere to
the eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of
Vice-Chancellor. He submitted that a bare perusal of the
advertisement dated 12.12.2023 clearly reveals that the
respondent-University had neither adopted nor adhered to the
eligibility criteria stipulated under the aforesaid Regulations and
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(7 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
directions. Consequently, the advertisement dated 12.12.2023, as
well as the consequential process for appointment of respondent
No. 6, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that the UGC Regulations,
2018 do not provide for any exception in respect of the
appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor of a University, nor do
they prescribe any separate or special procedure for such
appointment. It was contended that the State Legislature could
not have prescribed an independent mechanism under Section
11(1) of the Act of 2012, dispensing with the eligibility
requirements and procedure contemplated under Section 11(3) to
Section 11(6) of the Act of 2012, read with Regulations 7.3(ii) and
7.3(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018. According to learned
counsel, the power conferred upon the Chancellor under Section
11(1) cannot be exercised in derogation of the mandatory
requirements prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2018.
14. He, therefore, submitted that Section 11(1) of the Act of
2012, to the extent that it permits the appointment of the first
Vice-Chancellor without adherence to the eligibility criteria and
procedure prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2018, is
repugnant to the said Regulations and is liable to be declared ultra
vires , void and inoperative. Learned counsel accordingly prayed
that the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Vice-Chancellor of
the respondent-University, along with the advertisement dated
12.12.2023 and the consequential selection and appointment
process, be quashed and set aside.
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(8 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
15. Per contra learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Joshi,
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 and learned Additional
Advocate General Mr. BL Bhati alongwith Mr. Deepak Chandak
appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel have raised the preliminary objection with respect
to the maintainability of the present public interest litigation on
the ground that the petitioner has committed flagrant violation of
the norms governing the public interest litigation as the same has
not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan High
Court Rules. It was contended that the petitioner instituted the
present public interest litigation proceedings without adhering to
the mandatory requirements prescribed under the Rajasthan High
Court Rules, 1952.
16. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to Rules
385-F, 385-G and 385-H of the Rules of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, which prescribe the disclosures,
supporting material and declarations required to be furnished by a
person/petitioner instituting a public interest litigation. It was
submitted that Rule 385-F requires disclosure of the petitioner's
social and public standing, professional status and public-spirited
antecedents; the sources of finance for meeting the expenditure
relating to the petition, along with the Permanent Account
Number, if any; the source of information forming the basis of the
averments; the facts constituting the cause and the nature of
injury caused or likely to be caused to the public; the extent of the
petitioner's personal interest, if any; and complete particulars of
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(9 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
any civil, revenue or criminal litigation in which the petitioner has
been involved before any Court or Tribunal. Learned counsel
further referred to Rule 385-G, which requires a public interest
litigation to be supported, as far as practicable, by prima facie
proof and affidavits in respect of each substantive averment or
allegation. Reliance was also placed on Rule 385-H, which
mandates declarations regarding the research undertaken by the
petitioner, annexation of the relevant material gathered during
such research, and disclosure of whether the issue raised has
already been adjudicated or a similar or identical petition has
previously been filed, together with its status or outcome.
17. Learned counsel submitted that a litigant who does not
approach the Court with clean hands and fails to make the
requisite disclosures cannot claim consideration of the petition on
merits. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the present petition
deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, with the imposition of
exemplary costs upon the petitioner.
18. It was further submitted that abuse of the process of law in
the name of public interest litigation constitutes a sufficient
ground for this Court to decline to entertain the petition on merits.
Learned counsel emphasized that the requirements under the
aforesaid Rules are intended to ensure bona fides and prevent the
misuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in public
interest matters. In particular, it was contended that the petitioner
was also required to make full disclosure of his criminal
antecedents in accordance with the applicable Rules, and any
failure to furnish such disclosure would further disentitle him to
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(10 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present public
interest litigation and, therefore, it is prayed that the present
petition filed in the form of public interest litigation be dismissed
with heavy costs.
19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
20. A detailed scrutiny of the record of this case reveals that the
personal grudges and complaints against the respondent no.6
camouflaged
have been in the form of filing the present public
interest litigation. We note that the respondent no.6 was the vice
chancellor of the University from 2020-2023 and the petitioner
was working at the relevant point of time as Assistant Professor in
the same University. At that point of time, no grievance was raised
against the respondent no.6 by the petitioner regarding the
requisite qualification and he was appointed under the same rules,
but the problem started when the proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner by the respondent no.6 by way of filing
criminal complaints and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against him for committing offences under Sections 354, 354A,
354D, 384 and 509 of IPC and also under the Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace Act, 2023 and for the offences under
Section 4,5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention
of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. It appears that only after proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 6, the
petitioner began to explore an opportunity to settle personal
scores with respondent No. 6. The conduct of the petitioner while
filing the present writ petition give rise to a strong inference that
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(11 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
the same has been instituted not out of any genuine concern for
public interest, but to score personal vendetta of the petitoner
against respondent No. 6. Had the petitioner been acting bona fide
and with a genuine intent to espouse a cause in public interest, he
ought to have approached this Court at the appropriate stage,
particularly when respondent No. 6 was initially appointed as Vice-
Chancellor in the year 2020 under the Rules prevelant in the year
2020. It is, however, significant that the petitioner did not
question the said appointment at that point of time and chose to
institute the present Public Interest Litigation only in the year
2024, after proceedings had been initiated against him by
respondent No. 6. It is further pertinent to note here that the
Rules governing for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor remained
unchanged between the years 2020 and 2024. Respondent No. 6
was initially appointed in the year 2020 and was subsequently
reappointed in the year 2024 by resorting to the very same Rules.
Thus, despite being fully aware of the appointment of respondent
No. 6 under the aforesaid Rules in the year 2020, the petitioner
chose not to question his initial appointment and approached this
Court only upon the subsequent reappointment in the year 2024.
This sequence of events, when viewed in the backdrop of the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 6,
lends considerable credence to the inference that the present
litigation is nothing but an attempt of the petitioner to as to wrack
personal vengeance.
21. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed this petition
as a public interest litigation and therefore, the filing of the public
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(12 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
interest litigation in the Rajasthan High Court is governed by the
provisions of Rule 385 of the Rules of Rajasthan High Court rules
and the connected provisions.
22. For brevity, Rule 385 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules is
reproduced herein below:
385-F.- Facts to be disclosed.-
A petition filed in public interest shall disclose-
(1) the social public standing/professional status
and public spirited antecedents of the petitioner/
petitioners;
(2) the sources of finance for meeting the
expenditure related with the petition alongwith
Permanent Account Number, if any, with the
Income Tax Department;
(3) the source of the information on which the
averments made in the petition are based;
information on which the averments.
(4) the facts constituting the cause;
(5) the nature of injury caused or likely to be
caused to the public;
(6) the nature and extent of the personal interest,
if any, of the petitioner/petitioners involved in the
cause;
and
(7) as to whether the petitioner, or any of the
petitioners when there are more than one, is or has
been involved in any other civil, revenue, criminal
litigation in any capacity before any Court or
Tribunal and if so, complete details of such
litigation including the subject matter thereof.”
23. A bare perusal of the rules quoted herein above, particularly
sub-rule (7) of rule 385F mandates that a person/petitioner(s)
who is filing the public interest litigation is required to disclose the
details of the criminal cases filed against him/pending against him
and such disclosure has been held to be mandatory disclosure .
As mentioned in the reply filed by the respondent no.6, against
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(13 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
petitioner, following cases are pending/decided against the
petitioner:
S.NO. Case Details Provision/subject
matter
Present status
1. FIR no.141/2022 Karwar
Police Station, Jodhpur
dated 16.8.2022 (filed by the
Registrar, Sardar Patel
University of Police, Security
and Criminal Justice (SPUP),
Jodhpur
Section 4,5 and 6 of
Rajasthan Public
Examination
(Prevention of
Unfair Means Act,
1992)
• Prosecution
sanction has
been given by
the Board of
Management,
SPUP, Jodhpur
Charge-sheet
•
filed in the
court.
2. FIR NO.174/2022 Karwar
Police Station, Jodhpur
dated 23.9.2022 (filed by a
Girl Student, Sardar Patel
University of Police Security
and Criminal Justice Jodhpur)
Section 354, 354A,
354D, 384 of IPC
1860
Charge sheet
•
filed
3. FIR NO.216/2022 Karwar
Police Station, Jodhpur
dated 14.12.2022 (filed by a
Girl Student, Sardar Patel
University of Police Security
and Criminal Justice Jodhpur)
Section 354, 354A,
354D, 509 of IPC
1860
• Charge sheet
filed
4. Inquiry report on paper leak
by internal committee
N.A. Report
•
submitted by
the committee
to the
University.
• Petitioner found
guilty.
• Notice has been
issued to the
petitioner
(suspended) for
major penalty.
5. Internal Complaint
Committee (ICC) under
Sexual Harassment of
Women at workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013
NA Inquiry
pending,
meanwhile
petitioner
(suspended)
has been
recommended
by the ICC not
to enter in the
University
Premises. ICC
has
recommended
maximum major
punishment
which has also
recommended
by Board of
management
6. Inquiry on submitting fake
transport bill
NA Minor penalty
(stoppage of 2
increments
without future
effect) on
5.9.2023
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(14 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
7. Preventive arrest by Kanwar
Police Station on 5405/2022
dated 30.11.2022
Under Section 107,
151 of Cr.P.C.
Released on bail
on personal
bond
8. SB Cr. Misc. Petition
No.7166/2022
Under Section 482
in connect with FIR
No.141/2022, PS
Kanwar Section 482
Pending
9. SB Cr. Misc. Petition
No.6722/2022
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. in
connect with FIR
No.174/2022, PS
Karwar Section 482
Pending
10. SB Cr. Misc. Petition
No.8842/2022
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in
connection with FIR
No.16/2022, PS
Karwar Section 482
Pending
24. The petitioner has conveniently not mentioned particulars of
such pending/decided cases against him.
25. In the considered opinion of this court, this is a material
suppression of fact. The conduct of the petitioner in view of the
discussions made above dis-entitles him from raising any dispute
with respect to the validity of the rules in the shape of the public
interest litigation.
26. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Himmat
Singh Gehlot Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.24826/2025) has held as under: -
“16.In this context, Rule 385-F of Rules of the High Court of
Rajasthan, 1952, Chapter XXII A, may be seen, the same
reads asunder:
385-F.- Facts to be disclosed.-
A petition filed in public interest shall disclose-
(1) the social public standing/professional status
and public spirited antecedents of the petitioner/
petitioners;
(2) the sources of finance for meeting the
expenditure related with the petition alongwith
Permanent Account Number, if any, with the
Income Tax Department;
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(15 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
(3) the source of the information on which the
averments made in the petition are based;
information on which the averments.
(4) the facts constituting the cause;
(5) the nature of injury caused or likely to be
caused to the public;
(6) the nature and extent of the personal interest,
if any, of the petitioner/petitioners involved in the
cause;
and
(7) as to whether the petitioner, or any of the
petitioners when there are more than one, is or has
been involved in any other civil, revenue, criminal
litigation in any capacity before any Court or
Tribunal and if so, complete details of such
litigation including the subject matter thereof.”
16.1. Rule, ibid, prescribes the mandatory
disclosures that must accompany a petition filed
in public interest litigation (PIL) so that the Court
can examine the bona fides, credibility and locus of
the petitioner at the very threshold. Of particular
relevance are sub-Sub Rule (1), (6) and (7), which
operate as safeguards against misuse of the PIL
jurisdiction. Sub Rule (1) requires a petitioner in a
PIL to disclose his social standing, professional
status and public-spirited antecedents so that the
Court can assess whether the litigation is genuinely
motivated by public interest and not by private or
collateral objectives.”
27. In similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Sandeep Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors
(DBCWP No.2605/2026), decided on 13.4.2026, held as under:
“10.1. This Court further observes that the petitioner,
while invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court,
was under a statutory obligation to make complete and
truthful disclosures in terms of Rules 385-F and 385-H of
the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
1952; however, such mandatory disclosures have not
been adhered to.
10.5. This Court notes that in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
16385/2022 (PIL), the petitioner has declared that he has
no personal interest in the matter, which is not borne out
from the overal conduct and repeated involvement of the
petitioner in similar issues. This Court further finds that
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(16 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
prior litigations were not disclosed and the declaration
under Rule 385-H is incomplete and misleading. The
assertion regarding absence of alternative remedy is also
found to be incorrect.
10.7. This Court finds that in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
2605/2026 (PIL), the petitioner has once again falsely
declared that no such writ petition had been filed
previously, despite a series of earlier petitions. This Court
further observes that the petitioner has not
disclosed his criminal antecedents, prior adverse orders,
or the repetitive nature of the cause of action, thereby
making a materially false and misleading disclosure.
10.8. This Court further observes that in none of the
petitions has the petitioner disclosed his criminal
antecedents, which is a relevant factor while examining
the bona fides of a litigant invoking public interest
jurisdiction.
11. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that any
litigant, who at any juncture as mentioned hereinbefore,
tries to abuse the process of law, cannot be permitted to
continue his litigation. The flagrant violation is on record,
as the petitioner has not disclosed his criminal
antecedents and has also not disclosed the details
envisaged under Rule 385-F and 385-H of the Rules of
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 which
require him to file the PILs within the well disclosed
parameters. The overall conduct of the petitioner, in filing
these petitions, has a cumulative impact, and the broader
parameters of the challenges therein are of a Similar
nature. Furthermore, once the litigant is tainted with the
fact of not making the statutory disclosures and of filing
wrongful affidavits, this Court ought to take a stringent
view and deny such a litigant the right to continue
litigation.”
28. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner delivered the case of Rajesh Awasthi (supra)
that anybody can file the petition seeking writ of quo warranto is
concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the proposition is
not disputed as canvassed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, but while filing the public interest litigation and praying
a writ of quo warranto, the tenets for maintainability of the public
interest litigation are required to be taken into consideration and
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(17 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
in the present case, the same has been codified in the Rajasthan
High Court Rules, 1952, which mandates the disclosure of criminal
cases pending or decided against the person/petitioner(s) who is
filing such petition. The suppression of facts regarding pending
cases, in the considered opinion of this court, is a voluntarily act,
more particularly, when all those cases were filed during the
tenure of respondent no.6 and therefore, the argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the disclosure of those
cases need not to be mentioned in the present case as they were
filed by the respondent no.6, is noted to be rejected being
baseless and unfounded as the law does not mandates that who is
the complainant and what is the gravity of the offense. The law
mandates only mentioning of the details with respect to the cases
pending or decided against him and therefore, the argument of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is fallacious.
29. The primary object and purpose of public interest litigation is
to ensure access to justice for the weaker, disadvantaged and
marginalized sections of society, to protect their fundamental
rights and to secure redressal of genuine public wrongs or injuries
arising from violations of statutory or constitutional provisions.
The jurisdiction of public interest litigation is intended to advance
the cause of public justice and cannot be permitted to be
converted into an instrument for settling private disputes,
vindicating personal grievances or bringing adversaries to terms.
It is neither a forum for pursuing personal vendettas nor a
mechanism for wreaking vengeance against an individual under
the guise of espousing a public cause. Public interest litigation is a
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(18 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
potent judicial remedy which must be invoked with utmost care,
caution and circumspection. The Court, while entertaining such
proceedings, is required to remain vigilant to ensure that the
process of law is not abused by persons acting with oblique
motives or pursuing collateral objectives. A genuine public cause
must not become a cloak behind which personal malice, private
interests, vested interests or publicity-oriented motives are sought
to be advanced. The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be permitted
to be misused by unscrupulous litigants seeking to settle personal
scores by disguising private disputes as matters of public
importance. The legitimacy of a public interest litigation,
therefore, rests not merely upon the nature of the relief sought,
but equally upon the bona fides , credibility and genuine public-
spiritedness of the person invoking such extraordinary jurisdiction.
30. The scope of public interest litigation is considered and
analyzed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. We
find it apt to quote the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Dr. B. Singh Vs.
Union of India & Ors reported in 2004(3) SCC 363 , which
reads as under:
“12. 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 armoury of law for delivering social
justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public
interest litigation should not be allowed to 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
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(19 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive
or political motivation or other oblique consideration. 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 past time 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out
by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with
exemplary costs.
13. 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.
1 4. 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 busy bodies 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 Publico, though they have no interest
of the public or even of their own to protect.
31. In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti versus State of
Rajasthan and others (2014) 5 SCC 530 , a Bench comprising
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(20 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
“49. The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon
which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who
are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other
downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation,
the cause of several people who are not able to approach the
court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we
are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the
benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very
cautious and careful while entertaining public interest
litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public
interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest
litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for
which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the
poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should
discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself
and the person who misuses the forum should be made
accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the
courts while protecting the larger public interest involved,
should at the same time have to look at the effective way in
which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are
adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can
be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be
adjudicated by a mechanism created under the particular
statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate
forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public
interest litigation.”
32. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled principles governing the
exercise of jurisdiction in matters of public interest litigation, when
the credentials and conduct of the petitioner are examined in the
light of the material available on record, this Court finds that the
present petition has not been instituted bona fide . The petitioner
has not only failed to disclose the material particulars concerning
the civil, revenue and criminal proceedings in which he has been
involved, but has also withheld information which he was under a
mandatory obligation to disclose in terms of Rule 385-F of the
Rules of 1952. Such deliberate non-disclosure of material facts
and failure to disclose the requisite antecedents of the petitioner
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)

(21 of 21)
[2026:RJ-JD:53287-DB] [CW-1153/2024]
amount to an abuse of the process of law and, in the considered
opinion of this Court, are sufficient, by themselves, to disentitle
the petitioner from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court by way of public interest litigation.
33. In view of the foregoing discussions, and without entering
into the merits of the substantive issues raised in the present
petition, particularly the challenge to the constitutional validity of
Section 11(1) of the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and
Criminal Justice, Jodhpur Act, 2012, this Court considers it
inappropriate to examine the same in the present proceedings,
leaving the question open to be considered in an appropriate case.
34. Consequently, the present writ petition, instituted in the
nature of public interest litigation and it has been filed with
ulterior motive so as to settle the personal score with the
respondent no.6. The same is therefore, dismissed with costs of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The petitioner shall
deposit the costs with the Rajasthan State Legal Services
Authority.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
Crt_2 (2039)
D-A/13
C.P. Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:18:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/11/2026 at 02:57:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)