KUSHUM LATA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 12-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KUSHUMLATA 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 12, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963; Rule 23: 
Auction of Mines of sand-One of the lenderers, not allowed to 
participate-Filing of writ petition/Public Interest litigation-Dismissed by 
High Court--On appeal, Held: Petitioner has styled the writ petition as 
Public Interest Litigation though it relates to a tender where she herself 
claimed to be a tenderer-A petition on the same cause of action pending 
in the High Court wherein she is one of the parties-Under the circumstances, 
D High Court was fully justified in dismissing the petition styled as PIL. 
Public Interest litigation-Scope of-Discussed. 
Respondent No.4, an Authority, had issued a Notification in pursuance 
of Government Order under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals 
E (Concession) Rules, 1963 for auction of mines of sand, boulders etc. The 
auction was postponed. The appellant, one of the tenderers, alleged that she 
was not allowed to participate in the auction in a malafide manner with a 
view to favour respondent No.5. A writ petition styled as Public Interest 
Litigation was filed by her praying for investigation into the alleged 
F irregularities. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the 
successful bidder was not a party to the Public Interest Litigation; and that 
the appellant cannot file the Public Interest Litigation when she herself 
claimed to be an intending bidder. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the High Court erroneously proceeded on a 
G highly technical basis without appreciating that the public interest was 
involved; and that the State's largesse was being given for a very paltry 
amount 
The respondents submitted that the High Court rightly observed that 
H 
462 
·~ 
. ., 
KUSHUMLATA v. U.0.1. 
463 
the petition though styled as a PIL was nothing but an attempt to misguide A 
the Court; that there was no public interest involved when the appellant herself 
was an intending bidder; and that a group of persons, including the appellant, 
have challenged the legality of the auction by filing a Writ Petition which is 
pending in the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. There must be 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 
B 
to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge C 
and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by 
unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person 
acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of 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 or private profit or political motive or D 
any oblique consideration. 1467-B-C] 
The Janta Dal v. HS Chowdhary, 1199214 SCC 305 and Ka:;i Lhendup 
Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 11994] Supp 2 SCC 116, relied on. 
1.2. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest E 
must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also 
with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. 1467-D] 
Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR (1993) SC 852 and K.R. 
Srinivas v. R.M Premchand, 11994] 6 SCC 620, relied on. 
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (JV Edition) and Black's Law 
Dictionary (Sixth Edition), referred to. 
1.3. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with 
great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful 
F 
to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, G 
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 social justice to the 
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 publicity oriented or founded H 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A on personal vendetta. (469-F-Gl 
1.4. The Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member 
of public, who approaches the co

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