S.M. Mokhtar Alam v. The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)

2. 27-06-2013 We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this Public Interest Litigation the petitioner stated to be the Vice-chairman of the District Congress Committee at Sitamarhi, contends that he is a social worker and that has no personal interest in pursuing the matter. As per pleadings, in Eviction Suit No. 3 of 1986 filed by respondent no.6 and under orders passed in Execution Patna High Court CWJC No.11588 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 2 Case No. 1 of 2007 delivery of possession was made to him of the lands in question. The lands of which delivery of possession was given are government lands and the petitioner/ State Government (emphasis by us) through Collector, Sitamarhi and Anchal Adhikari filed Misc. Case No. 1 of 2012 under Order 21, Rule-97 against Execution Case No. 1 of 2007 which was dismissed by the Munsif, Pupri, at Sitamarhi on 22.08.2012. Against the order for dismissal the Collector, Sitamarhi and the Anchal Adhikari have filed Appeal No. 18 of 2012 before the District Judge at Sitamarhi, which was transferred to the Court of A.D.J.-2 at Sitamarhi. The Khatiyan was wrongly prepared in the name of father of respondent no. 6 & 7 fraudulently in the year 1968. In Consolidation Case No. 1868 of 1983 the Consolidation Officer had ordered for correction in Khatiyan in favour of the State of Bihar. Pursuant to the same a tenant of the State Government Md. Hashim Raza filed an application under Section 10 (4) of the Consolidation Act vide Case No. 67/1993. Title and possession was declared in favour of the State Government. In 1982 in Case No. 523 of 1982. Paragraph 9 of the writ application submits that many people reside on the lands in question who had tenancy rights from the State Government and not the private respondent nos. 6 & 7. The private respondents have falsely Patna High Court CWJC No.11588 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 3 stated that they had collected rent. The ground taken by the private respondents in the eviction suit are all incorrect and even at the time of Zamindari Eradication no returns has been filed in his favour. The lands in question even if they are government lands, the State officials have the primary duty and responsibility to protect government interests. The petitioner alleges that the officials are in collusion with the private respondents. His contention is belied on his own pleadings that Misc. Case No. 1/2012 was filed by the Collector and after its dismissal Appeal No. 18/2012 has been filed by the Collector. The Collector and Circle Officer are therefore not sitting idle but are discharging their duties in accordance with law for protection of government interests. We are satisfied that if the Collector is alive to the situation, the petitioner has no locus in the matter. His alleged espousing of a public cause has no substratum in view of the miscellaneous case and the appeal filed by the Collector. The petitioner himself is not one of the persons alleged to be a tenant of the State government, directly affected. The petitioner is a political activist. In (2004) 3 SCC 363 (Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.). It has been observed at para 12 in context of Public Interest Litigations as Patna High Court CWJC No.11588 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 4 follows:

12. 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 as ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury 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, courts 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 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary cost. to be abused its process How political Interest Litigations are sought to be espounsed as Public Interest Litigation was noticed in (2004) 3 SCC 349 (Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B.) observing as follows:

4. 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.11588 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 5 litigants by resorting litigation” or “private interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or the latest trend “paise income litigation”. If not properly regulated and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant or poke one’s nose into for a probe. 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 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 infraction of rights and genuine 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 Janata Dal case and Kazi Lhendup Dorji Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. 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 and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand”.

12. 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 as ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury 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, courts 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 for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested to be abused its process Patna High Court CWJC No.11588 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 6 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary cost. The misuse of public interest jurisdiction for espousing political aspirations was noticed in (1992) 4 SCC 653 (Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India) observing as follows: “7…On first principles we find it difficult to accept Mr. Sodhi’s contention that such a public interest litigation commenced by a leader of a recognized political party who has a genuine interest ion the future of the convicts should be entertained. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 2, Bhagwati, J. observed : (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…” We are not satisfied the present case qualifies as a bona fide Public Interest Litigation, but is an abuse of the Patna High Court CWJC No.11588 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 7 cause of public interest litigation and has resulted in waste of judicial laws political battles must be taught on the political turfs. The application is dismissed with Rs.40,000/- as cost to be deposited in the District Legal Service Authority, Sitarmarhi, within a period of 4 weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited it shall be recoverable as a public demand. The application is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) Fahad/Prakash. (Vikash Jain, J)