Sampurnanand Singh v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. facie satisfied regarding (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. should (6) The Courts ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts the petitions (8) The Courts should also filed by ensure busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by costs or by imposing adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” exemplary Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.

620 of 2011. An objection was raised on behalf of the State that the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter. It was also submitted on behalf of the State that Arun Kumar Sinha and Narendra Singh were the same person as also evident from the educational certificates and the voter i-card. The Court simply disposed the matter with directions 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.14781 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 to the District Superintendent of Education to look into the report of the Block Education Officer and proceed accordance with law without going into the merits. We have gone through the pleadings in C.W.J.C. No. 620 of 2011. The present application is but a reproduction of the earlier writ application. The previous writ application filed on 5.1.2011 did not mention the date of appointment of respondent no. 7. Even the present application does not do so. We asked the counsel for the petitioner if he could inform us when respondent no.

7 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that he was not in a position to assist the Court on that factual aspect. The writ application was filed on 5.1.2011 barely days before the superannuation of respondent no. 7 on 31.1.2011. The petitioner was not an applicant for the post of Assistant Teacher in competition with respondent no. 7. He does not even claim to possess the qualification appointment as an Assistant Teacher. Conversely, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 7 does not possess the qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher and had never applied for the post and/or was never considered in accordance with law. The case of Dineshwar Prasad (supra) has therefore no application if respondent no. 7 possessed the qualification for the post of Teacher, was recruited through a 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.14781 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 process of selection and cannot be classified as an usurper especially in view of the enquiry report that Arun Kumar Sinha and Narendra Singh were the same person.

The question for consideration in the case of Mahesh Chandra Gupta (supra) was entirely different. It related to the appointment of a High Court Judge and interpretation of the words “eligibility” and “suitability”. It has no application to the facts of the present case. In Village Panchayat, Calangute (supra) the question was with regard to the locus standi of the Panchayat to file an application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution with regard to unauthorized constructions being permitted in the Panchayat. The discussion in Paragraph-32 notices the locus of the Panchayat holding that since the construction was to be made in the jurisdiction of the Panchayat which was objecting the same it had locus. The case has no application on facts. Salil Sabhlok (supra) regarding plenary powers under Article 226 has no application to the facts of the present case. The aforesaid discussion leaves us satisfied that the present is not a Public Interest Litigation at all.

The petitioner is not even aware when respondent no. 7 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. He does not state that respondent no. 7 did not hold the essential qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 7 came in through any illegal process of appointment. The enquiry report concludes that 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.14781 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 Arun Kumar Sinha and Narendra Singh were not two different persons but one individual. The petitioner does not claim that he holds the qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher much less he was an applicant in competition with respondent no. 7. The law stands well settled that no Public Interest Litigation would lie in a service matter. In (2013) 4 SCC 465 (Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) the appellant was issued a caste certificate after following procedures that he belonged to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribe).

On basis of the certificate he was appointed as a Senior Clerk in the Municipal Corporation against the vacancy reserved for that category. The caste certificate Scrutiny Committee confirmed his caste status. After a lapse of 9 years from appointment respondent no. 5 filed a complaint before the Scrutiny Committee for recalling the caste certificate on the ground that employment had been obtained by way of misrepresentation and the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe as he professed the religion of Islam. It was observed at Paragraph-9 as follows:- “9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of maintainable either for the purpose of the Constitution 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.14781 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities.

Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the court for relief as regards the same.” invoking The limits of the Public Interest Litigation and the caution sounded for the Courts in such matters has been noticed at Paragraph-14 as follows:- This “14.

Court consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework or the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict 11 Patna High Court CWJC No.14781 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a vise”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. ” With regard to the locus of respondent no.

5 to question the caste status and consequent appointment of the appellant, it was observed at Paragraph-18 and 23 as follows:-

18. As Respondent no. 5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribe candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether Respondent no. 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever.

evident ignorance,

23. Thus, from the above it ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because illiteracy, ininarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of requires consideration, the court may proceed suo motu, in such respect.

the court, Disapproving of the conduct of respondent no.

5 12 Patna High Court CWJC No.14781 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 in pursuing the matter holding it to be not bona fide public interest litigation amounting to abuse of the process of Court, it was observed as follows at Paragraph-47 and 48, imposing a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited within a period of one week:- “47. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, however, considering the fact that Respondent 5 has not been pursuing the matter in a bona fide manner, and has not raised any public interest, rather he abused the process of court only to harass the appellant, Respondent 5 is restrained the matter any further, and also from remaining a party to it, and he is also liable to pay costs to the tune of rupees one lakh, within a period of 4 weeks to the District Collector, Aurangabad. intervening “48. The District Collector, the said Aurangabad, would deposit amount in the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

In the event that the costs imposed are not deposited by Respondent 5 within the period stipulated, we request the District Collector, Aurangabad, to recover the same as arrears of land revenue and deposit the same accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent by the Registry of this Court to the District Collector, Aurangabad compliance.” (Maharashtra) Having considered the matter in its entirety and given our anxious consideration to the same, we are satisfied that the present application does not qualify as a public interest litigation and lacks bona fides. The petitioner has abused the process of Court. Time and again the Courts have cautioned against the misuse of the Public Interest jurisdiction 13 Patna High Court CWJC No.14781 of 2012 (7) dt.24-06-2013 consuming valuable and precious time of the Court which can be better devoted to more important matters requiring adjudication. We therefore consider it necessary to pass exemplary orders so that such applications of the present nature are not presented in the Court in the guise of Public Interest Litigation.