GURPAL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 10-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GURPAL SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Public Interest Litigation: 
Service matter-Writ petition by an individual filed under public interest 
litigation challenging appointment of another individual-Appointee C 
questioning locus standi of writ petitioner and contending that petition filed 
because of political and personal rivalry-High Court allowing the writ 
petition-Held, when a particular person is the object and target of a petition 
styled as PIL, court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise 
of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendatta, personal D 
grouse or some other mala fide object-On facts, High Court not justified in . 
entertaining the writ petition-Judgment of High Court set aside. 
Appointment of appellant as Auction Recorder in the year 1986 was 
questioned by filing a complaint alleging that he was convicted under 
s.61(l)(a) of Punjab Excise Act in 1974. The complaint was looked into E 
by the Market Committee which held that the appointment was not 
contrary to law. The appellants' appointment was again challenged by 
filing a writ petition in the High Court as also a complaint before the 
Administrator, Market Committee. Meanwhile respondent No. 4 filed a 
public interest writ petition in the year 2000, challenging the appointment F 
of the appellant. The Market Committee contended that conviction of the 
appellant did not involve any moral turpitude and the appointment was 
in accordance with law. The appellant questioned locus standi of the writ 
petitioner contending that no public interest was involved and because of 
political and personal rivalry the petition was filed. The High Court set 
aside the appointment on .the ground of conviction of the appellant. G 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. While considering the scope of entertaining a petition 
215 
H 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner 
particµIarly in matters involving service of an employee has to be 
examined. The Court has to be satisfied. about (a) t,he 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 invorved. Court has to 
B strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be 
allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the 
character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid 
mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable 
executive actions. [219-C-D] 
c 
1.2. 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 
D sodaljustice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest 
. litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of 
mischief. Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member 
of public who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal 
gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique 
E consideration. [221-D, E, F] 
State of Maharasht.ra v. Prabhu, [1994] 2 SCC 481; Andhra Pradesh 
State Financial Corporation v. Mis. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR 
(1994) SC 2151; Dr. B.K Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265; 
D. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., AIR (1999) 
p SC 114 and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State o/W.B., [20Q4] 3 SCC 349, relied 
on. 
Public Interest Law Litigation, USA, Report published in 1976 by the 
Council for. Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation, referred to. 
G 
1.3. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition 
styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the 
guise of public interest is really intended to unleash' a private vendetta, 
personal grouse or some other ma/a fide object. In the instant case, the 
High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. The 
judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is therefore set a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.