LexM/S. HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. versus PREM CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MIS. HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS. DECEMBER 6, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND P . SATHASIV AM, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition styled as Public Interest Litigation-By a spokesperson of recognized political C party-Challenging allotment of plots by State Government-High Court concluding the allotments as being irregular on the basis of files-Parties not asked by the Court to clarify the doubts-On appeal, held: The Writ Petition was not in public interest-Even if the petition is not found to be in public interest, if the Court finds that there is scope D for dealing with the matter farther in greater public interest, it can be done-Jn view of the manner, the High Court came to its conclusion, matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration-Public Interest Litigation. E Public Interest Litigation (P IL)--Scope of-Held: P IL is a weapon I °", ' f which has to be used with great care and circumspection-It is to be used for delivering social justice-A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of public interest litigation alone has locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fandamental rights and infraction of statutory provisions- F Where P IL is found to be merely a camouflage to foster personal ~ · disputes, it has to be thrown out-A petition based on news reports without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained-Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions-Constitution of India, G 1950-Article 226. Respondent, a spokes-person of a recognized political party tiled a writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation alleging that land given to the appellant through its director-respondent No.5, at H 1068 HOLICOWPICTURESPVT.LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA 1069 MISHRA different places in the State, by the State Government without issuing A any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of those plots; that the allotment was without following any norms or procedure; that the act of the State Government caused heavy loss to the State; and that the action was based on political considerations and was, therefore, malajide. High Court observed that allotment B was done in irregular manner. It rejected the allegation of malafide giving benefit of doubt to State. The authority concerned was directed to resume possession of the land. Hence, the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court C HELD: 1.1. 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. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field D in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latesttrend "paise income litigation". If not property regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must E be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation. [Para 10) [1076-G; 1077-A) 1.2. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. i -~ A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the F proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. [Para 10) [1077-B, C] G J Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, [1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorjiv. Central Bureau of Investigation, [1994) Supp 2 SCC 116, relied on 1.3. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public H 1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 12 S.C.R. A interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. [Para 10] (1077-D) B Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR (1993) SC 852 and KR. Srinivas v. R.M Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620, referred to. 1.4. On account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.