AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.—This is a writ petition taken on file on the basis of a telegram issued by the petitioner herein.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a tenant in occupation of two rooms forming part of the premises bearing No. 11-6-224 situated beside the Azizia Hotel, Nampally, Hyderabad. He filed a complaint, which is registered as Cr.No.54 of 1996, before the Nampally Police Station alleging that some anti social elements belonging to the group of Khaja Naseeruddin and Ayub Ali are disturbing his business and since no action was taken by the police, he filed a suit in O.S.No.1478 of 1996 along with I.A.No.523 of 1996 before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for an injunction restraining the said Khaja Naseeruddin and others from interfering with his business or dispossessing him from the suit property. The Court below allowed the said I.A. filed for interim injunction. Thereafter, he filed another interlocutory application in I.A.No.773 of 1996 for police protection, which was also ordered by the Court below. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the fact that the Court below granted interim injunction and also police protection, the said Khaja Naseemddin, Ayub AH and others did not stop harassing him and hence he filed W.P.No.13947 of 1996 before this Court seeking police assistance for the purpose of proper implementation and enforcement of temporary injunction granted in I.A.No.523 of 1996. That writ petition was disposed of by one of us i. e., V. Rajagopal Reddy, J. observing that the police are posted in the compound wall of the petitioner only to seek that no law and order problem arises and making it clear that police cannot prevent but should help the petitioner as well as any other person from carrying business peacefully. Thereafter, contempt case was also filed stating that the respondents therein failed to comply with the orders made in W.P.No.13947 of 1996 and that was dismissed. Later present telegram was issued and an affidavit was also filed in support of the writ petition stating all the events.
The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the orders of the Civil Court granting injunction and police aid and also the direction of this Court to help the petitioner to carry on his business peacefully, he was dispossessed and hence this writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation.
The Inspector of Police, Nampally Police Station filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner herein filed a complaint, which is registered as Cr.No.54 of 1996, alleging that some goondas are preventing him from carrying on his business peacefully and after investigating into the matter it was found that it was a false case and hence the case was closed. It is also stated that the petitioner filed a civil suit and obtained an injunction and thereafter filed another complaint, which was registered in Cr.No.93 of 1996; before the police; a petition for police protection before the Civil Court; and W.P.No.13947/96 seeking a direction to restrain the respondents therein from interfering with his peaceful possession, which were all ordered and it has clarified that all the orders of the Civil Court as well as the High Court are obeyed by the police. He denied the allegation that police are harassing the petitioner and unsocial elements arc creating problems for him.
The learned Government Pleader contended that the writ petition is filed to declare the action of Respondents 1 to 3 in dispossessing him from the suit mulgi as illegal and to direct the police to handover the said mulgi and restrain the culprits from illegal interference, which are personal reliefs and not in the interest of public and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable.
The main question that arises for consideration is - Whether the writ petition is maintainable and the reliefs prayed can be granted when the matter is pending before the Civil Court ?
Before dealing with the question that arises for consideration, it is pertinent to note the scope of public interest litigation. The public interest litigation basically concerned with the issues relating to infringement of legal and fundamental right of poor masses and improving the lives of the less advantaged persons of the society through the judicial process. The object of public interest litigation is to render socio economic justice to the poor and weaker sections. The facts stated by the public interest litigant should reveal that he is genuinely concerned in public interest and satisfy the Court about their bona fides even at the threshold so as to enable the Court to proceed further in the matter. The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, has elaborately considered the nature and scope of the public interest litigation and laid down the following limitations :
"1. Courts must see that the member of public who approaches the Court in such cases is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique considerations.
Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain political objective.
Court must not over step the limits of its judicial functions and trespass into areas reserved for the executive and legislature by Constitution."
In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Others, the question arose was whether the High Court can direct the State Government to pass anti-ragging legislation to curb the evil of ragging. In this case, the letter written by a parent of a medical student was treated as a writ petition by the High Court. The Supreme Court holding that judiciary cannot compel the State Government to initiate legislation with a view to curbing ragging, also observed that 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 under the guise of redressing a public grievance it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and Legislature. The Supreme Court in Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SCI 109 observed :
"There is the need to restraint on the part of Public Interest Litigants when they move the Courts. Public Interest Litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to the Courts and public alike. Such cases are not filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines, and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If Courts do not restrict the Public Interest Litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer. And the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions."
Court further observed :
"That does not mean that traditional litigations should stay out. They have to be tackled by other effective methods like decentralising the judicial system and entrusting majority of traditional litigation to village Courts and Lok Adalats without the usual populist stance and by a complete restructuring of the procedural law which is the villain in delaying disposal of cases."
The Supreme Court further observed that frivolous litigation in the name of public interest by public having vested interest should not be entertained and indicated the norms as to when the Court should leave aside procedural shackles and hear public interest petitions ;
"It is only when Courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class or when basic human rights-are invaded or when there arc complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the Courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extent its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants."
The Apex Court in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and others, , while considering as to when recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution has to be taken, also observed that the Court has to evolve its own methods to prevent misuse of public interest litigation. The Court further observed :
"Anything which endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws, that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to be taken recourse of Article 32 of the Constitution. But this can only be done by any person interested genuinely in the protection of the society on behalf of the society or community. This weapon as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of circumspection and caution..... While it is the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of the Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court. That would be an act or a conduct which will defeat the very purpose of preservation of fundamental rights.''''
A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court while dealing with a public interest litigation in regard to the appointment of lecturers held as follows :
"In Krishna Kant Jaiswal Vs. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and Others, , one of the facts which may deter the Court from affording such assistance is that the petitioner has a personal axe to grind and the petition is founded on apparently selfish and personal motives. He should not be inspired by malice or a design to malign others or be actuated with the desire for propaganda. Motives of personal vendetta, political or otherwise, shall also be looked upon with eminent disfavour before the Court entertains such writ petition."
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in H.K. Chopra Vs. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and others, imposed punitive costs on the petitioner therein observing that the public interest litigation was filed with malacious intent to help the interests of rivals.
The principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments clearly go to show that where the writ petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation seeking a personal relief but not in the interest of the society or under privileged or where the jurisdiction of this Court is sought to take vengeance against the rivals, the same should not be entertained.
In the present case, the petitioner filed a civil suit and the matter is pending. If a civil suit is pending in regard to the issue involved and further when there is no public interest involved, this writ petition cannot be entertained. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs.5,000/-.