M-S. HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 1068

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

M-S. HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

MIS. HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. I °", v. PREM CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS. DECEMBER 6, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P . SATHASIVAM, JJ. ) ' f Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition styledas Public Interest Litigation-By a spokesperson ofrecognizedpolitical party-Challenging allotment ofplots by State Government-High Court concluding the allotments as being irregular on the basis of files-Parties not askedby the Court to clarify the doubts-On appeal, held: The Writ Petition was not in public interest-Even ifthe petition is notfound to be inpublic interest, ifthe Courtfinds that there is scope for dealing with the matterfarther in greater public interest, it can be done-Jn view ofthe manner, the High Court came to its conclusion, matter remittedto High Courtfor fresh consideration-Public Interest Litigation.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)--Scope of-Held: PIL is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection-It is to be used for delivering social justice-A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings ofpublic interest litigation alone has locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation offandamental rights and infraction ofstatutoryprovisions- Where PIL is found to be merely a camouflage to foster personal ~ · disputes, it has to be thrown out-A petition based on news reports without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained-Easy access tojustice should not be misusedas a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions-Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 226. Respondent, a spokes-person of a recognized political party tiled a writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation alleging that land given to the appellant through its director-respondent No.

5, at MISHRA different places in the State, by the State Government without issuing any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of those plots; that the allotment was without following any norms or procedure; that the act ofthe State Government caused heavy loss to the State; and that the action was based on political considerations and was, therefore, malajide. High Court observed that allotment was done in irregular manner. It rejected the allegation ofmalafide giving benefit of doubt to State. The authority concerned was directed to resume possession ofthe land. Hence, the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: 1. 1. 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.

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" orthe latesttrend "paise income litigation". Ifnot property 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. [Para 10) [1076-G; 1077-A) 1. 2. Courts ofjustice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. i -~ A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding ofpublic interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation offundamental rights and infraction ofstatutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

[Para 10) [1077-B, C] J Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, [1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorjiv. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, [1994) Supp 2 SCC 116, relied on 1. 3. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for reliefin 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. [Para 10] (1077-D) Ramjas Foundation v. Union ofIndia, AIR (1993) SC 852 and KR. Srinivas v. R. M Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620, referred to. 1. 4. 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 ofthe genuine litigants.

The busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either ofthemselves or as a proxy ofothers or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare ofpublicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask ofpublic interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time ofthe Courts and as a result ofwhich the queue standing outside the doors ofthe Courts never moves, which piquant situation c1·eates frustration in the minds ofthe genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration ofour judicial system. (Para 17) (1079-B, C, F, G, HJ 1. 5.

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 ofpublic interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products ofmischief. Court must be careful to see that a body ofpersons or member ofpublic, 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. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

[Para 18) [1080-A, B, C, DJ . l MISHRA .! i State ofHP. v. A Parent ofa Student ofMedical College, Simla _, and Ors. , (1985] 3 SCC 169, relied on. 1. 6. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) theprimafacie correctness or nature ofinformation given by him; (c) the information being notvague 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 ofothers; and (ii) avoidance ofpublic 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. [Para 20) [1080-G, H; 1081-A] 1. 7. 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 ofjustice and -{ refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. [Para21] (1081-C) State ofMaharashtra v. Prabhu [1994) 2 SCC 481; and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Mis GAR Re-RollingMills and Anr. , AIR (1994) SC 2151, referred to. 1. 8. 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. [Para 21) (1081-D, E] ' ~ Dr. B. K Subbarao v. Mr. K Parasaran, (1996) 7JT 265, referred to. 1. 9. Relaxation ofthe rule oflocus standi in the field ofPIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise ofa public interest litigant. [Para 23) [1082-C) SP. Guptav. Union ofIndia, [1981] Supp. SCC 87, relied on. 1. 10.

A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. Such r 'petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. Newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. [Para 22) (1082-A, BJ AshokKumar Pandeyv. State ofWest Bengal, [2004) 3 SCC 349; Dr. B. Singh v. Union ofIndia and Ors. , (2004) 3 SCC 363; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors. , (2005) 1SCC590, >- .... relied on. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Volume 4 (IV Edition); Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition); Report ofPublic Interest Law, USA, 1976 by The Councilfor Public Interest Law, referred to. 2. 1. 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. petitioner out ofpicture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be done in exceptional cases and not in a routine manner. [Para 26) (1082-G; 1083-A) 2. 2. In the instant case, It is true that the High Court's conclusions were drawn after going through the files. However, 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/illegalityin allotment. In the circumstances the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration. [Paras 27 and 28] [1083-A, B, CJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5671 of 2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 18. 12. 2006 ofthe High Court of Judicature at Patna in C. W. J. C. No. 9085/2006. Harish N. Salve, Aprajita Singh and N.

Annapoorani for the Appellant. P. S. Patwalia, Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Anil Kumar Jha, Braj Kishore Mishra, Apama Jha, Tanushree Sinha, Abhishek Yadav, Vikrant, U. K. Jha and Gopal Singh for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by ·~ ~ DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by aDivision Bench ofthe Patna High Court disposing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. I 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 ofthe 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 ofpresent appellant who was respondent No.

5 in the writ petition was given land in return ofservices rendered by him to help the present ChiefMinister 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 himselfas the ChiefSpokesperson of the Indian National Congress, a recognized political party. His party contested the previous election in alliance with the party that was in power > 4 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 aperson who is well-known as a filmmaker 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 meetingsjointly with the present ChiefMinister in various parts ofthe State. As both the petitioner and said Prakash Jha are political persons, it is not sruprising that the pleadings are heavy with political invectives. r , , 4. In the writ petition, it was stated that the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authofity (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 ofland 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 ofthe 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 ofland 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 the land in Patliputra Industrial Area. The favour was crowned by putting very low value for the building. It was also alleged that the action ofthe State Government/Authority in granting to respondent no. 5 land at different 0 places was an act ofmalafide and called for institution ofcriminal cases against the concerned people and an investigation by the Central Bureau ofInvestigation. 5. The wiit 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 ofthose land plots, (ii) the allotment -was made without following any norms or procedure and (iii) the action ofthe 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 ofthe writ petitioner. They took the stand that there was nothing illegal and the entire action was bonafide in the greater interests ofthe 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 ofthe action ofthe then State Government who had in the year 1996 allotted the land in the Patliputra Industrial areas to one Mis Dynax Digital Studio (Ind) Pvt. Ltd. for con5ideration ofRs. 5. 5 lakhs.

The allotment made was subsequently cancelled and the consideration for allotment was fixed by raising the land HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA l075 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 ofmalafides is concerned the State's submission was accepted by giving "benefit ofdoubt". 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 ofthe 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 ofmalafide. 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 ofthe 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 ofrespondent No. 5. All the allotments of lands made in favour ofrespondent No. 5 are accordingly quashed. The Authority is directed to resume possession ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofwith 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 ofprinciples ofnatural 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 reading ofthe 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.

Ifthe 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 ofthe writ petitioner about malafides. That was sufficient to through out the writ petition at the threshold. Instead ofthat the High Court referred to the records and came to conclusions finding alleged discrepancies without grant ofopportunity. 'Ibe 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 ofthe conclusions ofthe 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 ofby the High Court.

It is pointed out that the writ petitioner himselfaccepted that he was a functionary ofa 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. I-writ petitioner submitted that merely because the High Court has given the "benefit ofdoubt" to the State Government, it could not have closed eyes to the apparent illegalities which a bare perusal ofthe 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. l0. 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 oflaw should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". Ifnot 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 ofknight errant home out ofwishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body ofpersons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts ofjustice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinaryjurisdiction.

Aperson 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 offundamental rights and genuine infiaction ofstatutory 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 ofIndia, AIR (1993) SC 852 and KR. Srinivas v. R. Af. Premchand, [1994] 6 SCC 620]. 11. It is necessary to take note ofthe meaning ofexpression 'public interest litigation'. Jn Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), ,. .

; 'Public Interest' is defined thus: "Public Interest (1) a matter ofpublic or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of infmmation or anmsement but that in which aclass ofthe community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal lights 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. InJanata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation.

In para 52 ofthe saidjudgment, 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 oflaw for the enforcement ofright or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement ofpublic 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 ofthe saidjudgment, it was pointed out as follows: "Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement oflocus standi ofa party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity ofthe 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 ofthe said judgment, it hasfurther been pointed out as follows: "While this Court has laid down a chain ofnotable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance ofthis newly developed doctrine ofPIL, 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 ofthe 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 ofPIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation oftheir 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 ofPIL, 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 ofthe genuine litigants.

Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept ofPIL 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, unrepresented 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 ofmillions ofrupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons 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 ofcases wherein huge amounts ofpublic revenue or unauthorized collection oftax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a Jong serpentine queue for years with .

J 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 ofthemselves 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 ofpublic interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time ofthe Courts and as a result ofwhich the queue standing outside the doors ofthe Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds ofthe genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration ofourjudicial system. 18.

Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and thejudiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil ofpublic 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 oflaw for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name ofpublic interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products ofmischief. It should be aimed at >- ' redressal ofgenuine 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 bonafide 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 ofmeddling withjudicial process either by force ofhabit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions ofsuch 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 ofthe 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 primafacie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and ~definite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance ~ ' HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA 1081 between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character ofothers; and (ii) avoidance ofpublic mischiefand 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 ofredressing 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 crusaders ofjustice. They pretend to act in the name ofPro Bono Publico, though they have no interest ofthe public or even oftheir own to protect. 21. Courts must do justice by promotion ofgood faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by inte1fering where necessary for the sake ofjustice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of - < Maharashtra v. Prabhu, [1994] 2 SCC 481 andAndhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr. , AIR (1994) SC 2151,. No litigant has aright 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, (l 996) 7 JT 265). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name ofpublic 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 ofso called public interest litigations where even aminuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters ofpublic 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 ofgenuine 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 ofstatements 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 1- ~ message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval ofthe Courts. 23. In SP. Gupta v. Union ofIndia, [1981] Supp.

SCC 87, it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation ofthe rule oflocus standi in the field ofPIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise ofa 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 ofthe public, who approaches the court in cases ofthis kind, is acting bonafide 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 ofHP. v. A Parent ofa Student ofMedical 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 ofWest Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union ofIndia & Ors. [2004] 3 SCC 363 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State ofMaharashtra 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 petitioner out ofpicture 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 ofthe High Court's conclusions about irregularity/illegality in allotment. 28. In the circumstances we set aside the order ofthe High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say the parties shall be perh1itted to place material in support oftheir respective stand, in addition to those which are already on record and the High Court shall thereafter take adecision 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 ofthe case. - \ ·29. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. K. K. T. Appeal partly allowed. ' . ) . )