http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5671 of 2007

PETITIONER:

Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd.

RESPONDENT:

Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2007

BENCH:

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P . SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of

the Patna High Court disposing the writ petition filed by the respondent

No.1 styled as a "Public Interest Litigation". The order gave certain

directions and nullifying certain allotments of land made in favour of

respondent No.5. In the writ petition action of the State Government of

Bihar in granting appellant through its Director Prakash Jha land pieces in

the Industrial areas in Patna, Hajipur, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Buxar.

The writ petitioner alleged that the said Prakash Jha, Director of present

appellant who was respondent No.5 in the writ petition was given land in

return of services rendered by him to help the present Chief Minister to

win last assembly elections. It was alleged that the action of the

Government amounted to doling out valuable State property as largess at

throw away prices for political considerations.

3. The writ petition was filed, and was claimed to be, in public interest.

The respondent described himself as the Chief Spokesperson of the Indian

National Congress, a recognized political party. His party contested the

previous election in alliance with the party that was in power at that

time. The alliance got worsted in the election and Congress party was

returned as a poor fourth. Respondent no.5 is a private limited company; it

is represented through a person who is well-known as a film-maker but who

also takes part in electoral politics. In the supplementary affidavit filed

by the petitioner, it was stated that Prakash Jha had fought the 2004 Lok

Sabha Election from the Bettiah Lok Sabha Constituency. It is further

stated that in. the last assembly election held in October-November, 2005

though not a candidate himself, he addressed public meetings jointly with

the present Chief Minister in various parts of the State. As both the

petitioner and said Prakash Jha are political persons, it is not surprising

that the pleadings are heavy with political invectives.

4. In the writ petition, it was stated that the Bihar Industrial Area

Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") has

given large areas of land at various places to respondent no.5 at throwaway

prices. It was further stated that allotments of land were made to

respondent no.5 without issuing any notice, inviting competitive bids, and

the land areas were granted to respondent no.5 at very cheap rates without

following the established norms and procedure. According to him the market

value of the said land plosts was much higher. For instance, in Patliputra

Industrial Area, Patna one acre land was given to respondent no.5 for

Rs.14,65,000.00. This piece of land should have fetched the State about

rupees five crores if allotments were to be made on the basis of

competitive bidding. It was also stated that in a blatant show of favour,

respondent no.5 was also given the Authority's Office building along with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7

the land in Patliputra Industrial Area. The favour was crowned by putting a

very low value for the building. It was also alleged that the action of the

State Government/Authority in granting to respondent no.5 land at different

places was an act of malafide and called for institution of criminal cases

against the concerned people and an investigation by the Central Bureau of

Investigation.

5. The writ petition, in brief, made three allegations. (i) land plots were

given to respondent no.5 at different places in the. State without issuing

any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of those

land plots, (ii) the allotment -was made without following any norms or

procedure and (iii) the action of the State Government caused heavy loss to

the State; the action was based on political considerations and was,

therefore, malafide.

6. The respondents in the writ petition questioned bonafides of the writ

petitioner. They took the stand that there was nothing illegal and the

entire action was bonafide in the greater interests of the State. It was

pointed out that the malafides of the writ petitioner are clear from the

fact that the writ petitioner did not question legality of the action of

the then State Government who had in the year 1996 allotted the land in the

Patliputra Industrial areas to one M/s Dynax Digital Studio (Ind) Pvt. Ltd.

for consideration of Rs.5.5 lakhs. The allotment made was subsequently

cancelled and the consideration for allotment was fixed by raising the land

value at the rate of 10% only as provided in Govt. letter dated 17.7.1982.

It was also submitted that the petition was an abuse of Public Interest

Litigation and deserves to be rejected outright.

7. After referring to the various stands, ultimately, the High Court came

to observe that there was more than what met the eye and the allotment of

land plots to respondent no.5 was done in a thoroughly irregular manner and

the allotments are completely untenable. So far as the charge of malafides

is concerned the State's submission was accepted by giving "benefit of

doubt". It was, however, observed that the authorities were in a hurry to

go for private investment and that might have led to non-observance to some

of the official norms was held to be completely unacceptable. The writ

petition was disposed of with following observations and directions.

"In the facts and circumstances discussed above, I reject the

allegation of malafide. But at the same time, I am unable to accept

the submission that the Court should not interfere in the matter

because the writ petition may not qualify as Public Interest

Litigation. In view of the facts coming to its notice, the only

proper course for the Court is to intervene and to set things

right. I therefore, feel constrained to interfere with the

allotments made by the Authority in favour of respondent No.5. All

the allotments of lands made in favour of respondent No. 5 are

accordingly quashed. The Authority is directed to resume possession

of the lands. It will be open to respondent no. 5 to make fresh

applications with proper Project Reports and supporting documents

for allotment of lands to it at different centres. In case such

applications made, the authority shall consider them in accordance

with las and take a decision on those applications within three

months of the date of their receipt in its office. It will be open

to respondent No.5 either to get back all its money deposited with

the Authority or in case it makes fresh applications to wait till

the final decision on those applications is taken by the Authority.

This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations

and directions. There will be no order as to costs."

8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that there was complete violation of principles of natural justice in the

instance case. The High Court's observations were contrary to the materials

on record. The High Court appears to have based its conclusions on a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7

reading of the files without any opportunity to either the authorities or

the State Government and in any event not to the present appellant to

explain the fact situation. If the High Court had any doubt about any

aspect which according to it was relevant, opportunity in that regard

should have been given. Unfortunately that has not been done. It is pointed

out that the High Court has rightly rejected the stand of the writ

petitioner about malafides. That was sufficient to through out the writ

petition at the threshold. Instead of that the High Court referred to the

records and came to conclusions finding alleged discrepancies without grant

of opportunity. The conclusions are contrary to the materials available and

in any event the High Court ought not to have relied solely on the counter

affidavits filed which were in fact replies to the averments made in the

writ petition. Most of the conclusions of the High Court related to aspects

which were not even pleaded in the writ petition. That being so, there was

no scope for the respondents in the writ petition to throw any light on

aspects which ultimately were taken note of by the High Court. It is

pointed out that the writ petitioner himself accepted that he was a

functionary of a political party. The petition is nothing but political

vendata unleashed.

9. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and the Authority supported the

stand taken by the appellant. On the contrary the respondent No.1-writ

petitioner submitted that merely because the High Court has given the

"benefit of doubt" to the State Government, it could not have closed eyes

to the apparent illegalities which a bare perusal of the records revealed.

The State and the Authorities, it is submitted, filed affidavits taking

contrary stands. Stand which was stated in one affidavit was subsequently

departed from.

10. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public

interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal

disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the

issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the

issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which

has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law

should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest

litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise

income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes

also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance,

as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the

litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of

wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of

persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their

personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be

polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary

jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in

the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi

and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and

genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or

private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These

aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary,

[1992] 4 SCC 305, and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of

Investigation, [1994] Supp 2 SCC 116. A writ petitioner who comes to the

Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands

like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and

clean objective. [See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR (1993) SC

852 and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, [1994] 6 SCC 620].

11. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression `public

interest litigation'. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV

Edition), `Public Interest' is defined thus:

"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean

that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information

or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7

interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are

affected."

12. In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined

as follows:

"Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which

their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything

the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in

question. Interest shared by national government...."

13. In Janata Dal case (supra) this 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 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."

14. 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 standi 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 be primarily

ascertained at the threshold."

15. 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."

16. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:

"It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient

interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can

approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering

from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal

gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the

Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the

threshold".

17. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings

initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the time which

otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of the genuine

litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the

laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor,

the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are

infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented

and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine

litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving

properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which

persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7

sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years,

persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or

private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of

public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up,

detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all

standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting

into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies,

meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having

absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit

either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous

motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by

wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by

filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the

valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing

outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation

creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly

they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system.

18. 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 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 considerations. 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 to 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.

19. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in

USA defined the "public interest litigation" in its report of Public

Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:

"Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts

provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and

interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that

ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to

significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such

groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers,

racial and ethnic minorities and others."

20. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the

applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given

by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information

should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance

between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge

in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and

(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions

seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In

such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It 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 the Legislature. The Court has to act

ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome

interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7

crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico,

though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.

21. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from

crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering

where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is

against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v.

Prabhu, [1994] 2 SCC 481 and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v.

M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR (1994) SC 2151,. No litigant has a

right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to

get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice

should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous

petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265).

Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this

attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts

and among the public.

22. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though

titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is

shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called

public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can

legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the

parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court

in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and

objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable

judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for

disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on

newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As

observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute

evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying

their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such

petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of

statements made and information given in the petition. It would be

desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss

them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right

direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval

of the Courts.

23. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1981] Supp. SCC 87, it was

emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in

the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome

interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest

litigant. He has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para

24)

"But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who

approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for

personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique

consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by

politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain

a political objective."

24. In State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and

Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 169, it has been said that public interest litigation is

a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection.

25. These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of

West Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

[2004] 3 SCC 363 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and

Ors. [2005] 1 SCC 590.

26. It is true that in certain cases even though the Court comes to the

conclusion that the writ petition was not in a public interest, yet if it

finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter further in greater

public interest, it can be done. This can be done by keeping the writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7

petitioner out of picture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be

done in exceptional cases and not in a routine manner.

27. It is true as contented by learned counsel for the appellant that the

High Court's conclusions were drawn after going through the files. It is

apparent from records that the High Court did not ask the parties to

clarify any doubt it entertained as regards certain crucial aspects. These

aspects assume considerable importance because they have formed the

foundation of the High Court's conclusions about irregularity/illegality in

allotment.

28. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the High Court and remit

the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say the parties shall

be permitted to place material in support of their respective stand, in

addition to those which are already on record and the High Court shall

thereafter take a decision in the matter within four weeks. Further

affidavits shall be filed with all relevant details/documents by the

parties. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the case.

29. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.