(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents herein to remove the shops around the Palani Temple Hills Girivala pathai where persons belonging to Islam and other religion are running shops in which they are eating beef and insulting the religious faith of the devotees and creating disharmony by considering the petitioner's written representation dated 12.03.2016 within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.)
S. Manikumar, J.
1. Claiming himself to be a practising lawyer, under the garb of President, Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, Mr.K.Gopinath, party in person, is before us, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing Respondents to remove the shops in and around Palani Temple Hills Girivala pathai, run by persons belonging to Islam and other religion where they are eating beef, insulting the religious faith of the devotees and creating disharmony, by considering his representation dated 12.03.2016 within a time frame.
2. Supporting the prayer sought for, the petitioner submitted that Palani Hills is a Holy Hills, where there is a temple of Lord Muruga. Lakhs of devotees from various parts of India and Foreign Tourists visit the temple. The Executive Officer of the Temple is bound to preserve the holiness of the temple.
3. According to him, around Palani Hills, the entire circle of the Holy Hills is used as Girivalapathai. After observing fasting for many days, Hindu devotees will go around Girivalapathai. But the devotees feel uncomfortable to cross the shops housed in the Temple's property, adjacent to Girivalapathai which are occupied by people belonging to Islam and other religion. Occupants of such shops indiscriminately use beef and other non- vegetarian food by sitting in the stairs of Palani Hills and thus insult the religious faith of Hindus of Palani. It is his submission that if the above facts are not checked, they would create religious disharmony.
4. Party in person has also contended that the respondents have failed in their duty. Persons belonging to other religion have been occupying the shops adjacent to Girivalapathai and eating non-vegetarian food, creating discomfort to Hindu devotees, which is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
5. We have heard Mr.K.Gopinath, party in person and perused the materials available on record.
6. Before adverting to the averments made in the supporting affidavit, we wish to consider principles of law to be followed by the Courts in dealing with public interest litigation.
7. No doubt, Public Interest Litigations have come to occupy an important field in the administration of Law. Public Interest Litigations are very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people. But, unfortunately, lately, it has been abused by interested persons. Administration of justice should not be for any publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation or political litigation. There must be real and genuine public interest.
(a) In Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), reported in (1986) 1 SCC 100, it has been held as follows:-
2. Public interest litigation is a comparatively recent concept of litigation but it occupies an important status in the new regime of public law in different legal systems By its very nature the concept of public interest litigation is radically different from that of traditional private litigation. Ordinary tradition litigation is essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute between the two litigating parties, one making the claim or seeking relief against the other and the other opposing such claim or resisting such relief. While public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another, as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, it is intended to prosecute and vindicate public interest which demands that violation of constitutional or legal rights of a large number of people, who are poor, ignorant or socially and economically in disadvantaged position, should not go unnoticed, unredressed for that would be destructive of the rule of law. Rule of law does not mean protection to a fortunate few or that it should be allowed to be prosecuted by vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo. The poor too have a civil and political right. Rule of standing evolved by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress may not hold good in the present setting. Therefore, new strategy has to be evolved so that justice becomes easily available to the lowly and the lost. Law is not a closed shop. Even under the old system it was permissible for the next friend to move the court on behalf of a minor or a person under disability or a person under detention or in restraint. Public interest litigation seeks to further relax the rule of locus standi. This Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1982 (2) SCR 365 dealing with the question of public interest litigation observed:
It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons, in this Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.
The present is a typical case of public interest litigation and arises in the following circumstances.''
(b) In AIR 1993 SC 892 - Janata Dal vs. H.S.Chowdhary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"96.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 busybody 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."
(c) While observing that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon to be used with great care and circumspection, in 2008 (1) MLJ 1075 Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd. v. P.C.Mishra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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. .... 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. ....." (d) In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, it has been held as follows:-
''178. We must abundantly make it clear that we are not discouraging the public interest litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the courts for improving ecology and environment, and the directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life, etc. etc. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the courts to encourage genuine bona fide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in consonance with the Constitution and the laws.
179. The public interest litigation, which has been in existence in our country for more than four decades, has a glorious record. This Court and the High Courts by their judicial creativity and craftsmanship have passed a number of directions in the larger public interest in consonance with the inherent spirits of the Constitution. The conditions of marginalised and vulnerable section of society have significantly improved on account of Courts? directions in PIL.
180. In our considered view, now it has become imperative to streamline the PIL.
181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts 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.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.''
(e) In Union of India v. J.D. Suryavanshi, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 167, it has been held as follows:-
''7. In BALCO Employees? Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2002 (2) SCC 333 this Court held: (SCC p. 382, para 97)
97. Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the Government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject-matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in this present case.
(emphasis supplied)
(f) In P.Seshadri vs. S.Mangati Gopal Reddy and others, reported in 2011 (5) SCC 484, it has been held as follows:-
Public interest litigation can only be entertained at the instance of bona fide litigants. It cannot be permitted to be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievances as public interest litigations. The Supreme Court does not approve of an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individualsi i.e. busybodies, having little or no interest in the proceedings. The credentials, the motive and the objective of the petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard. Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.''
(g) In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2013 (4) SCC it has been held as follows:-
''The Supreme Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesistate to abuse the process of court. 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 vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of process of court and that, ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a visa. 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. Even as regards the filing of a public interest litigation, it has been consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned.''
(h) In Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 161, it has been held as follows:-
''24. Ordinarily, after so stating we would have proceeded to scan the anatomy of the Act, the Rules, the concept of the Scheme under the Act and other facets but we have thought it imperative to revisit certain authorities pertaining to public interest litigation, its abuses and the way sometimes the courts perceive the entire spectrum. It is an ingenious and adroit innovation of the Judge-made law within the constitutional parameters and serves as a weapon for certain purposes. It is regarded as a weapon to mitigate grievances of the poor and the marginalised sections of the society and to check the abuse of power at the hands of the executive and further to see that the necessitous law and order situation, which is the duty of the State, is properly sustained; the people in impecuniosity do not die of hunger; the national economy is not jeopardised; the rule of law is not imperilled; human rights are not endangered; and probity, transparency and integrity in governance remain in a constant state of stability. The use of the said weapon has to be done with care, caution and circumspection. We have a reason to say so, as in the case at hand there has been a fallacious perception not only as regards the merits of the case but also there is an erroneous approach in issuance of direction pertaining to recovery of the sum from the holder of the post. We shall dwell upon the same at a later stage.
25. As advised at present, we may refer to certain authorities in the field in this regard. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India reported in 1984 (3) SCC 161 Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was) had observed thus: (SCC p. 183, para 9)
9. When the Court entertains public interest litigation, it does not do so in a cavilling spirit or in a confrontational mood or with a view to tilting at executive authority or seeking to usurp it, but its attempt is only to ensure observance of social and economic rescue programmes, legislative as well as executive, framed for the benefit of the have-nots and the handicapped and to protect them against violation of their basic human rights, which is also the constitutional obligation of the executive. The Court is thus merely assisting in the realisation of the constitutional objectives.?
26. In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in 1987 (1) SCC 378 the Constitution Bench, while entertaining a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of the petitioner therein, observed that it is the right of every citizen to insist that he should be governed by laws made in accordance with the Constitution and not laws made by the executive in violation of the constitutional provisions. It has also been stated therein that the rule of law constitutes the core of our Constitution and it is the essence of rule of law that the exercise of the power by the State whether it be the legislature or the executive or any other authority should be within the constitutional limitation and if any practice is adopted by the executive which is in flagrant violation of the constitutional limitations, a member of the public would have sufficient interest to challenge such practice and it would be the constitutional duty of the Court to entertain the writ petition.
27. In Neetu v. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (10) SCC 614 the Court has opined that 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 litigation. Commenting on entertaining public interest litigations without being careful of the parameters by the High Courts the learned Judges observed as follows: (SCC p. 617, para 5)
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, [High Courts] are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. (Ashok Kumar Pandey case 2004 (3) SCC 349, SCC p. 358, para 16) Thereafter, giving a note of caution, the Court stated:
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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. (B. Singh case reported in 2010 (3) SCC 402, SCC p. 372, para 12)
28. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 (3) SCC 402 this Court adverted to the growth of public interest litigations in this country, and the view expressed in various PILs and the criticism advanced and eventually conceptualised the development which is extracted below: (SCC p. 427, para 43)
43.We deem it appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in three phases:
Phase I.It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalised groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this Court or the High Courts. Phase II.It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments, etc. etc.
Phase III.?It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance.
31. Thus, from the aforesaid authorities it is quite vivid that the public interest litigation was initially evolved as a tool to take care of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of the marginalized sections of the society who because of their poverty and illiteracy could not approach the court. In quintessence it was initially evolved to benefit the have-nots and the handicapped for protection of their basic human rights and to see that the authorities carry out their constitutional obligations towards the marginalised sections of people who cannot stand up on their own and come to court to put forth their grievances. Thereafter, there have been various phases as has been stated in Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 (3) SCC 402.
It is also perceptible that the Court has taken note of the fact how the public interest litigations have been misutilised to vindicate vested interests for the propagated public interest. In fact, as has been seen, even the people who are in service for their seniority and promotion have preferred public interest litigations. It has also come to the notice of this Court that some persons, who describe themselves as pro bono publico, have approached the Court challenging grant of promotion, fixation of seniority, etc. in respect of third parties.
(i) In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 5 SCC 530, it has been held as follows:-
''49. The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public interest litigation.''
8. With the above guiding principles of law, we now consider the case of the petitioner.
9. Contention of the petitioner that the temple property, adjacent to Girivalathapathai, are occupied by people belonging to Islam and other religion is unsubstantiated, by even a scrap of paper. The petitioner has not substantiated that people belonging to other religion cannot have any shops in the property.
10. The other contention that the occupants of the shops indiscriminately eat beef and other non vegetarian food, by sitting in the stairs of the Palani Hills and insulting the religious faith of Hindus and if the same is not eventually checked, it would lead to disharmony, is not supported by any evidence. The further contention that by eating non- vegetarian food they have created discomfort to Hindu devotees also not substantiated.
11. Nowhere in the Indian Penal Code it is stated that eating non- vegetarian food is an offence. There is no law touching eating habits of any religion and in such a view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that eating beef is an offence, cannot be accepted.
12. In view of the above, relief sought for is rejected. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.