Ramjanam Pandey vs State of U.P. and Others

This petition has been filed under the garb of public interest litigation arraying State of U.P through Chief Secretary Lucknow, Chief Minister (by name) Director CBI New Delhi, Nishant Goyal CorRespondent Tehalka Uttrakhand Vesheshank through Editor Tarun Ji Tejpal and Atul Chaurasia Correspondent Tehalka.

The Petitioner himself appeared in the Court and pressed the petition by arguing the case. He claimed to be Senior and a Citizen eminence who, it is further claimed, is conscious of duties and rights and also claims to be fighting effortlessly for vindication of truth. He also drew attention to the identity card issued by the General Manager Railways on 12.4.1999.

The reliefs sought in the petition is to issue mandamus to remove banner and posters hung prominently at various places dotting the roads and streets at Lucknow, to issue further mandamus not to grant permission for the congregation to be held on 15.3.2011, to issue a further mandamus to compensate the employees by paying them wages for two days as may be calculated, to be recovered from the coffer of BSP. and to award cost to the petition for the expenses incurred in filing the present petition.

The Petitioner, to begin with, has referred to the banner headlines published in news paper Dainik Jagran issuing from Varanasi dated 12th March 2011 which read "Kanshiram Jayanti Par Lucknow Saj Dhajkar Tayyar" (Lucknow decorated for Kanshiram Jayanti) further stating that it is nothing but a show of strength to browbeat the oppositions. It is also alleged that the congregation being organised is a precursor of ensuing Assembly election and the BSP Supreme has been organising the function keeping the entire public and administration in dark to achieve her nefarious and condemnable designs. It is also alleged that the Chief Minister has amassed unaccountable wealth and has enriched her near and dear ones and her family members by ill gotten money and while alleging he has referred to pages 44 to 50 of Tehalka Magazine in its issue dated 15th March 2011 further stating that the Magazine aforesaid had ample proof to bring home the guilt to her. The Petitioner has also made allegation against the fairness of investigation conducted by the CBI quipping that the CBI has softened up the culpability of BSP Supreme on the dint of money power splashed on it by the BSP Supreme. The Petitioner has also referred to the decision of Lucknow Bench whereby a sum of Rs 50 lac has been awarded against the person who had made unsustainable allegations against Rahul Gandhi and by referring to the decision, he has prayed that in case the correspondent of Tehalka does not furnish sustainable proof to what they have mentioned in the issue, they should also be punished by awarding exemplary cost.

It would thus transpire from the allegations that the Petitioner has sought relief in the matter on the basis of what has been published in the news magazine Tehalka. It is also worthy of notice that the facts mentioned in the aforesaid Magazine relate to CBI enquiry or the matter which are subjudice or which have suffered judicial scrutiny at one point of time. The disparate facts have been consolidated in the news article. In the article, CBI which is investigating various matters relating to the State of UP has also been brought in the dock casting aspersions upon its investigation.

The learned Counsel appearing for the State has 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 SCW 2 1993 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 there in initiated in 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 reliefs 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.