A. Saravanan vs Union of India and Others

N.K. Jain, A.C.J.

One Saravanan, a resident of Kallavi, Dhannapuri District having come to Madras has filed this Writ Petition as public interest litigation, alleging

that he is the citizen of India and owing allegiance and adherence to the Motherland the Bharath. It is alleged that he reliably understood that the

respondent No. 5 viz., Mrs. Sonia Gandhi married to Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, only after a lapse of 15 years from the date of

marriage, she acquired Indian citizenship for political gain, as Rajiv Gandhi had every chance to become Prime Minister in the year 1983. It is also

alleged that al the time of Proclamation of Emergency in the year 1975 the 5th respondent sought asylum in the Embassy of Italy. It is also alleged

that she obtained Indian Citizenship in the year 1983, and became a voter in the electoral roll, which is illegal and against law, without renouncing

her own citizenship as Italian for nearly 15 years. It is also alleged that he reliably understands that in the year 1988, the 5th respondent has

become the President of the Congress Working Committee and in the beginning of the year 1999, she made an attempt to rule this Country also. It

is alleged that the 5th respondent is not fit to rule our country without knowing our traditions and culture. It is also alleged that he reliably

understands that on 18.8.1999, the 5th respondent filed her nomination for Membership of Parliament in Bellary Lok Sabha Constituency in

Karnataka District, and the same was accepted on 19.8.1999. He further apprehends that she may try again to become Prime Minister of our

Nation. It is prayed in the writ petition that necessary direction may be issued declaring the nomination of the 5th respondent as unconstitutional.

We have heard the Learned Counsel at length and perused the materials available on record. No doubt in an appropriate case, this Court can issue

a writ in public interest in a public interest litigation. But at the same time, no writ can be issued for personal gain, for publicity or for political gain.

According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent had already acquired Indian Citizenship in the year 1983. He never questioned or made objection

before the Authority concerned at any appropriate time. Now, alleging that he reliably came to understand, the petitioner has filed this writ petition,

merely on the apprehension, which to our mind, is not maintainable. According to the petitioner, the nomination submitted by the 5th respondent

has been scrutinised by the 4th respondent and the same has been accepted. Once the nomination is accepted by the competent Authority, it

cannot be questioned in public interest litigation. Be that as it may, on consideration and on the facts of the given case, this public interest litigation

is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Counsel relied on the question of costs

on the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, On consideration, the said

decision is not applicable to the facts of this case, hence this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The costs should be paid by the

petitioner to the Legal Aid Board within one month from today. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos. 20874 and 20875 of 1999 are also dismissed.