Judgment:
Permod Kohli, J.
1. This petition filed as Public Interest Litigation by Raman Dev petitioner who seeks removal of alleged illegal construction said to be raised by respondent-3 and by taking the possession of the land for some public purpose came to be considered by us on 28.11.2005. On going through the allegations contained in the petition and particulars of petitioner which were lacking, we considered it proper to seek further information from the petitioner and also sought his personal appearance. In detailed order passed by us on 28.11.2005, we noticed the allegations made in the writ petition wherein it was alleged that petitioner himself obtained annexures to the writ petition from the revenue agency whereas the documents annexed to the petition reveal that the documents were obtained by one Raj Kumar S/O Om Parkash . The allegations thus prima facie found to be incorrect. It was further noticed that the land was said to be possessed by some Ganesh Dass who acquired the same by registered sale deed but copy of such deed was not on record. Petitioner had also not disclosed his residential address and other particulars including his status to enable us to find out his credentials and intention in filing this petition. It was under these circumstances, we ordered filing of affidavit giving details and also directed the appearance of petitioner and Raj Kumar who had obtained the certified copies of the annexures to the petition.
2. Instead of filing affidavit and making appearance as directed, a motion was laid by the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking time to file affidavit, cause appearance of the petitioner and that of Raj Kumar. This motion was allowed vide order dated 30-11-2005.
3. Today, when the petitioner appeared, we sought certain information from him and accordingly his statement was recorded to find out whether the present petition is intended to raise any real public interest dispute or is intended to be an attempt to gain publicity or is for any other ulterior motive. The statement of petitioner was accordingly recorded in the open court. Petitioner in his statement before us disclosed that he is working in a shop with his father. He is hardly 11th pass and is a visitor to the the temple nearer the house of respondent-3. He has stated that somewhere in the month of March or April, 2005, he visited the temple at 3.00/4.00 PM when he was informed by somebody that a palatial house has been constructed on State land . Name of such person is not known to him. He was also not aware when the house was constructed nor he has any knowledge as to who has constructed the house.
4. He has further stated that he has no knowledge of the documents produced by him in the court today. He had asked spmebody to procure copies. The person whom he instructed to obtain the copies, his name is not known to him. He has also no knowledge of the documents produced in the court. He has further stated on oath that he had not given the details of the documents copies whereof were to be procured by Raj Kumar. These documents relate to which Khasra No., is also not known to him . How many documents have been produced by him in the court, is also not known to him.
The witness has identified his signatures on the affidavit presented by him before this Court on 20-12-2005. On enquiry from the court, he has stated that he does not know the contents of the affidavit presented in the court. He was made to sign this affidavit by his counsel in his chamber situated at Shaheedi Chowk, Jammu. He has further stated that he did not visit any other person for attestation of the affidavit. He has further stated that he had informed his lawyer that it is a State land and he had asked him to bring the record. Raj Kumar is an Auto driver. What is qualification of Raj Kumar, is not known to him . Petitioner has further admitted that a case was registered against him by the police and a charge sheet was filed in the court of Tehsildar, Jammu. He does not remember the year when this case was registered against him. He has further stated that at the time of filing of this petition, he had signed some documents . He does not remember whether any affidavit was sworn by him or not. All documents were signed by him in the office of his advocate, Rajinder Singh Jamwal at Shaheedi Chowk, Jammu. He never visited any Magistrate or Oath Commissioner for attestation of the affidavit.
5. The above statement of the petitioner reveals a strange story. The statement made on oath before this Court totally contradicts the allegations contained in the memo of writ petition wherein he has mentioned Khasra Numbers of the land etc as also stated that respondent 3 has constructed a palacious house over the land . In his statement before this Court, he has expressed his total ignorance about the Khasra Number of the land and the details of the documents annexed with the writ petition. He has even denied that respondent -3 has constructed the house as he has specifically stated that that he does not know who has constructed the house and when the house was constructed.
6. We have carefully considered the averments made in the writ petition, affidavit dated 20-12-2005 filed pursuant to direction of the court and the statement made before us. We are at pain to say that this petition is a total misuse of the concept of Public Interest Litigation. As a matter of fact, statement of petitioner clearly establish that the petitioner has been used as a weapon by somebody for some ulterior motives. The statement further reveals that all appears to have been managed by learned Counsel for petitioner for what reason, only known to him. We declined to issue notice keeping in view the fact that the credentials of the petitioner were found to be doubtful at the initial stage itself. Our belief came to be strengthened on examination of the petitioner in the court. This Court cannot be used as a source to either hit somebody or to gain publicity or to settle scores of a person, whether before the court as petitioner or behind the scene.
7. The Apex Court in its various judgments deprecated the new emerging trend of filing Public Interest Litigation by unscrupulous persons for oblique motive and not for projection or redressal of the genuine public grievance. The latest judgment in the series is reported in Datta Raj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : AIR2005SC540 . This is a case in which a member of legal profession filed a Public Interest Litigation after accepting money from somebody. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court imposing cost of of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner- lawyer . The Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court also came to be dismissed . While considering the necessity, object at the back of the Public Interest Litigation and its misuse by unscrupulous persons, the Apex Court observed:
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 Litigation or Private Interest Litigation or Politics Interest Litigation or the latest trend paise income litigation the High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the last category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well. There must be a real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or there personal causes or satisfy his or there personal grudge and enmity. Courts of Justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extra ordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding or public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain on private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhary and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI (1992) Suppp (2) SCC 116 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 873. 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.
8. The Apex Court further noticed certain observations of noted case of Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhary reported in : 1993CriLJ600 . The relevant extract from these observations are:
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 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.
It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their 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 of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any person grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.
9. After taking notice of aforesaid observations, His Lordships Justice Arijit Pasayat who authored the judgment thus, observed:
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, any 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 citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. 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 of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as 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 costs.' '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 a large number of so-called public interest litigation where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a 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 of genuine cases.
10. Being disturbed on the conduct of such of the members of legal profession who become party in filing frivolous litigation in the guise of Public Interest Litigation, Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under:
It is a disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure by the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations to see that the process of law is not abused and polluted by its members. It is high time that the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of public interest litigation. That will be keeping in line with the high traditions of the Bar. No one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession. We would have imposed exemplary cost in this regard but taking note of the fact that the High Court had already imposed costs of Rs. 25,000, we do not propose to impose any further cost.
11. The present case also depicts a similar story. Here is a petitioner before us, who knows nothing about the issue sought to be raised. His credentials clearly demonstrate that he is only a stooge in the hands of somebody who had has no courage to come to the court as a petitioner. We are at pain to notice the role of the lawyer of the petitioner in filing this petition . The statement of petitioner clearly indicates dem that he is even unaware of the facts stated in the writ petition as also the affidavit filed before this Court on its directions. Petitioner appears to be only a name lender .Even the documents which are alleged to have been obtained by the petitioner were neither obtained by him nor he has any knowledge whatsoever regarding its contents and nature . The documents have been procured by somebody who is Auto Driver and is not expected to know the intricacies of law. Even the petitioner is llth pass and is working in a shop with his father. He was also involved in a criminal case. Even his conduct in the court shows that he is not a person who can be said to be interested in the litigation much-less espouse a public cause. He has been used by some unscrupulous person/persons for some oblique motive.
12. We are unable to persuade ourselves to take cognizance of this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Keeping in view the statement of the petitioner who knows nothing and has attributed everything to his lawyer, we record our displeasure on the conduct of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and warn him not to indulge in such activities in future, least the court is constrained to initiate disciplinary action. We stop here only and do not propose to initiate any further action.