Jibanand Sharma and Another vs State of Uttaranchal and Others

M.M. Ghildiyal and Rajesh Tandon, JJ.—Heard Sri L.P. Naithani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rakesh Thapaliyal, Ad. for the petitioners and Sri U.K. Uniyal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order dated 24.5.2004, issued by the respondent No. 1 so far as it relates to the transfer of teachers working if Government Institutions.

Recently, the Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 122 of 2004, (D. No. 305/2004) in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors., has laid down guidelines, the same is quoted as under :--

"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 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 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 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 as 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."

From the facts narrated in the writ petition as well as from the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, we are/of the view that the matter is not, at all, covered under the Public Interest Litigation. We also find that by framing the policy, the petitioners have not been affected adversely, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage as it has been filed mere on apprehensions.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioners to challenge the order, if the orders are passed against them.