KANSING KALUSING THAKORE AND ORS. versus RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 20-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KANSING KALUSING THAKORE AND ORS. 
l-: 
RABARI MAGANBHAI V ASHRAMBHAI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Public Interest Litigation-Founded on personal vendetta-
Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable since not aimed at redressal of 
C genuine public wrong or public injury- On facts, no case made out even on 
merits, since there was no violation of any legal right-Petitioners had 
suppressed material facts and acted with mala fide intentions-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Article 226. 
Administrative Law-Administrative action in pursuance of policy 
D decision-Scope for judicial review-Discussed. 
The State Government acquired land belonging to Appellant!' for 
establishing an Agricultural University. In lieu thereof, Appellants were 
allotted lands in furtherance of a Government policy decision for rehabilitation. 
Respondents challenged the allotment by filing writ petition in purported 
E public interest. Appellants were not made parties in the writ petition. 
Appellants filed application before the High Court challenging 
maintainability of the petition on ground that there had been no violation of 
legal rights. They further contended that Respondents were headstrong 
persons having political clout who made false statements and suppressed 
F material facts and further acted with malafide intentions by not making 
necessary and appropriate parties. The High Court held that the appellants 
had an existing right in terms of the Government policy and lience entitled to 
equitable relief but imposed stringent conditions upon the Appellants with 
respect to the land in dispute. 
G 
H 
The questions which arose for consideration before this Court are: (I) 
Whether the appellants are not entitled to any relief in the Writ petitions 
allegedly filed in public interest since they had personal interest involved and 
were actually encroachers who had been removed from the land in dispute 
and (2) Whether the conditions imposed by the High Court are not sustainable 
196 
-
KANSING KALUSING THAKORE 1·. RABARI MAGANBHAI VASHRAMBHAI 
197 
as it amounted to judicial interference in purely administrative acts in A 
furtherance of a policy decision of the Government. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The writ petition filed by the respondents is an abuse of the 
process of the Court. By this PIL, the respondents sought to ventilate/redress B 
their personal grievances inasmuch as they were able to bold clout in the 
village and were enjoying illegal possession in several lands. The appellants 
were deliberately not made parties to the writ petition allegedly fi1ed in pubHc 
interest. It is a matter of recor<i that the writ petitioners are the people who 
encroached upon the land sought to be granted to the appellants and hence 
having no legal right to continue their illegal occupancy, devised means to C 
approach the High Court in alleged public interest. The maintainability of 
the writ petition at the instance of the respondents was specifically raised 
before the High Court. The maintainability of the PIL which was in issue was 
unfortunately not decided by the High Court. The High Court, ought to have 
decided the maintainability of the PIL maintained at the instance of the D 
encroachers and land grabbers and rejected the writ petitions at the threshold. 
(204-D-G) 
1.2. Only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in 
the proceeding of PIL will have 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 E 
political or any oblique consideration. (204-G-H) 
1.3. The writ petition fi1ed by the respondents was not aimed at redressal 
of genuine public wrong or public injury but founded on personal vendetta. It 
is the duty of the High Court not to allow such process to be abused for oblique 
considerations and the petitions filed by such busy bodies deserves to be thrown F 
out by rejection at the threshold and in appropriate cases with exemplary 
costs. (205-A-B) 
Jania Dal v. H.S. ChaudhmJ' & Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 305, relied on. 
2. J. Even on merits, the respondents have absolutely no case. The G 
records filed in this case clearly go to show that there had been no violation 
of legal rights so as to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 
oflndia. The petitioners in the PIL had suppressed materia
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.