Ram Janam Pandey vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

By means of this petition, the Petitioner who claims to be a senior Citizen and a public spirited person, has sought following relief''s.

(i) to issue mandamus to the Union of India not to promote business with foreign companies and to forfeit the business of those companies besides direction to the Union of India to send back the planes which it has got in a dealing with American Government.

(ii) to issue mandamus to Chief Minister State of UP not to punish any officers by way or transfer during her visits to various districts and also not to terrorize any of the Government servants in the course of her unscheduled visit to Ambedkar Villages.

(iii) to seek clarification from the Respondents 3 to 8 whether they want reservation, whether they want a caste based social system or a caste less social system and they are still desirous of reservation, a direction be issued that they have to fight election on reserved seats alone.

(iv) to issue a general mandamus to the Distt Magistrate Mau not to obey wanton and arbitrary orders of the Chief Minister, to grant general amnesty to the Petitioner for all his crimes.

The Petitioner has arrayed Union of India through Secretary Telecom and Tele communication New Delhi, AIR Tell and other foreign countries, Chief Minister of U.P (by name), Sri Mulayam Singh SP Supremo, Sri Sharad Yadav President Janta Dal (U) and Convenor NDA, Sri Ram Vilas Paswan Ex Central Minister, Sri Nitish Kumar Chief Minister Bihar, Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav Rashtriye Janta Dal and Sri Rajeshji District Magistrate Distt Mau U.P.

The learned Counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the petition stating that the language used in the petition is unpalatable and the Petitioner has levelled wild allegations without any basis. It was also prayed that the Petitioner should be slapped with a exemplary cost and be desisted from indulging in making wild allegations against responsible public figures.

The learned Counsel appearing for the State has also drawn our attention to the order of Division Bench passed in PIL No 63078 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner in which also the Petitioner had made tirade against the present Chief Minister seeking relief to prohibit Chief Minister from making political speech on 6th Dec 2009 and not to create law and order problem and hindrance in cleanliness work. The Court while dismissing the petition as absolutely misconceived observed that relief''s prayed for cannot be granted in this public interest litigation and in ultimate analysis slapped cost of Rs 1000/-on the Petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the State that the Petitioner is in the habit of making unfounded and imaginary allegations against the Chief Minister and the petition should be dismissed in limine with a stern warning to the Petitioner to desist from making unfounded and frivolous allegations.

It has been enunciated in various decisions by the Apex Court 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 behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and 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. The Court must be careful to see that the Petitioner who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for person gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations and the court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. The Apex Court also administered caution that 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 and such petitions deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

In Janata Dal case AIR 1993 2 SCW 48 the Apex 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 n 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.

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 stand 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 primarily ascertained at the threshold.

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.

In view of the above, the petition has been filed without any valid basis and it appears to be an effort on the part of the Petitioner to be a publicity hunter. The relief''s prayed for are imaginary and the petition appears to be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed in limine with a warning to the Petitioner not to indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process.