ORDER
N.K. Jain, C.J.
1. One M.T. Mariswamy Gowda and nine others have filed this PIT, staring that the Indian Red Cross Society ('Society' for short) is a Society created by the IRCS Act, 1920 ('Act' for short). It has been constituted to achieve the noble goal of serving the sick, wounded and other people in need of medical and nursing care. It is stated that the petitioners are life members of the Society. It is stated that the third respondent has invited tenders as per Annexure-C, dated 4th December, 2000 to develop the plot bearing No. 26, Race Course Road, Bangalore, on lease basisand that on account of high-handedness of the Managing Body and in an arbitrary manner the property is being alienated to a private party causing enormous loss to the Society. It is further stated that pursuant to the tender, four tenderers were called but without giving opportunity to the other three tenderers for negotiation, the 3rd respondent has granted lease in favour of 4th respondent for a period of 85 years. Hence, they have challenged the same praying to issue direction to the 3rd respondent not to enforce or act upon Rule 2(a) of the Rules framed by the Managing Body for administration of the State branch and further to declare that the resolution of the Tender Committee dated 27-1-2001 vide Annexure-E is illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable.
2. In response to the notice, the 3rd respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections denying the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the petition is misconceived and it has been filed at the instance of the 10th petitioner-K.P. Aiyappa, with the ulterior intention of stifling and interfering with the activities of a body constituted under the Statute. It is also stated that the 10th petitioner is a member of the 3rd respondent-Society as well as a member of the Building Sub-Committee and was present in the meeting where appropriate decisions were taken and as he failed to have his views accepted by others has filed this PIL and the same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. The 4th respondent-M/s. Esteemed Developers has also filed its statement of objections denying the allegations as alleged. It is stated that this PIL is not maintainable and the petitioners cannot agitate the issue of a purely commercial transaction in the garb of PIL. It is also stated that in response to the Tender Notification advertised on 4th December, 2000 in 'Deccan Herald' for developing plot bearing No. 26, .Race Course Road, Bangalore, the tender was submitted and after attending the various meetings, the Tender Committee has agreed to the proposal made by it.
4. The main contention of Sri C.M. Monnappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that Rule 2(a) of the Rules framed by the Managing Body for the administration of the State branch gives unbridled power to the Managing Body to deal with the property of the Society in any manner, which is against the very scheme and purpose of the Act and therefore the same is liable to be declared as illegal and unconstitutional It is contended that the Society purchased the disputed property on 9-9-1960 and it consists of an area of 1,684.60 sq. mts. A two storeyed building was constructed and the 1st floor of the said building was given on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-. The same was demolished in November 1999 and after demolition, the property was kept vacant for more than 20 months. The action of demolition and keeping the same vacant, however, was not placed before the General Body Meeting and it is clear that the 3rd respondent was not functioning in compliance to its aims and objects. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 4th December, 2000 to develop the said plot and a meeting was held on 27-1-2001 wherein the Tender Committee of the Society without negotiations withother tenderers accepted the tender of 4th respondent-M/s. Esteem Developers and has caused loss to the Society.
5. To this, Sri A.N. Jayaram, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that there is no violation of the Rule and as per Rule 2 the Managing Body itself has the power inter alia to acquire, sell, exchange, partition, lease or otherwise dispose of the property of the State Branch. It is stated that on earlier occasion the Society had given some other property to KSFC on lease. At that point of time, the same was not challenged either by the petitioners, who allege to be life members of the Society or by any other members as the Society had the power to alienate the property. He further submits that as everything has been done as per the Rules, there is no violation of the Rules and further the minutes of the meeting was circulated to all the members through a report and even at that point of time no objection was raised by any of the members including the petitioners. But, the petitioners have challenged the same now in the garb of PIL. He further submits that the transaction is not one of absolute alienation, and the lease is only for a period of 85 years and the provision is that the building constructed upon the land will vest in the Society without any further payment at the end of the lease period. As per the terms offered, the 4th respondent will be paying Rs. 1 Crore, which is non-refundable and further rent of Rs. 2 Lakhs per year and apart from that it will give some portion of built-up area to the Society free of cost. As such it is in the interest of the Society and the petitioners are not entitled for any direction. Therefore, on merits also, the petitioners have no case and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Sri K.G. Raghavan, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, submits the 4th respondent had applied for tender along with others. The 4th respondent had participated in the meeting. It is stated that the Society, after considering all aspects accepted the 4th respondent's tender, being the highest bidder. In the absence of any grievance of the co-tenderers, this PIL filed by the alleged life members of the Society, is nothing but to deprive the 4th respondent from getting the fruits of the Tender. It is also stated that as per Section 6(b) of the IRCS Act 'all property movable, or immovable, of or belonging to the Committee shall vest in the Society and shall be applied by the Managing Body to the objects and purposes hereinafter set out'. It is stated that 4th respondent will be paying a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 1 Crore and in addition to that a rent of Rs. 2,00,0007- (Two Lakhs) per annum will be paid and 331/2 of the total built-up area will also be given to the Society. In the circumstances, this PIL is liable to be dismissed with costs, on merits as well as for want of locus standi.
7. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused materials placed on record.
8. No doubt, this Court in appropriate case can issue a direction in PIL, if it is found that there is a gross violation of fundamental rights or the issue involved touches the conscience of the Court. However, PTL cannot be used for espousing the personal cause or cause of someone elsein whom the petitioner is obviously interested or for publicity nr political motivation.
9. So far as legal point is concerned, no doubt, a rule or a circular can supplement the main Act, but at the same time the Rules cannot be inconsistent with the main Act. It is settled that reasons cannot be supplied but should be available on record so that the same can be seen hy the Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any inconsistency in the Rules framed by the Managing Committee. Nor the learned Counsel has produced any material showing the provision that it is necessary to put the resolution before the General Body Meeting. Learned Senior Counsel Sri A.N. Jayaram has also placed the original records before us for perusal, A perusaj of the Tender Notification reveals that the Society reserves the right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reason. It is also settled that this Court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and an administrative decision can only be impeached if it is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or the same is vitiated by mala, fides. In the instant case, no mala fides are pleaded.
10. In the facts of the given case, it is also to be seen whether this PIL is maintainable. On the question of maintainability of PIL, the Hoa'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has been repeatedly making a warning that 'public interest litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with care and circumspection and the judiciary 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' In Sachidanand Pandey and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1109, ( 1987 ) 1 CompLJ 211 ( SC ),JT 1987 ( 1 ) SC 425, 1987 ( 1 ) SCALE 311, ( 1987 ) 2 SCC 295, [ 1987 ] 2 SCR 223 their Lordship observed how the public interest litigation poses a threat to Courts and public alike, as follows:
'If Courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigation, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions'.
11. Be that as it may. In the instant case, all the petitioners are members of the Society. None of them have applied for the tender in pursuance of tender notice. As per the facts culled out, while challenging the Rule, their main grievance is that other tenderers were not called for negotiation. In our opinion, as discussed, the same cannot be agitated, as one cannot espouse the cause of others in the garb of PIL. This Court cannot also go into the facts and decide the internal differences between the members of the Society in a PIL. More so the aggrieved persons, if any, who were not called for negotiation, have not approached the appropriate forum at proper time. Otherwise also, for any commercial transaction, this Court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and no PIL can be entertained. The petitioners have not been able to show whattheir locus standi is. Once the petitioners have no locus standi, no direction can be issued in this PIL.
12. As discussed above and in view of the fact situation and case-law referred above, this PIL is liable to be dismissed with costs. But, as insisted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the indulgence shown by the other side, costs are made easy.
13. This PIL is dismissed.