NEETU versus STTE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 08-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
-; ,, 
-.., ... 
NEETU 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
JANUARY 8, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Public Interest Litigation: 
Writ petition before High Court-Filed by an unsuccessful candidate 
as public interest litigation-Challenging appointment of a candidate 
stated to have been made on basis of a false Scheduled Caste certificate-
Proceeding to cancel said certificate stated to be already under progress-
Held, when a particular person is object and target of a petition styled as 
PIL, Court has to be careful to see whether in the guise of public interest 
is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some 
other mala fide object-Factors to be taken into consideration by Courts 
while entertaining a writ petition under PIL reiterated-PIL is service 
matters-Locus standi of petitioner-PIL-Copies of public documents 
annexed in such matters-Frivolous pleas to explain possession thereof to 
be dealt with seriously-Constitution of India-Article 226. 
Respondent no. 7, an unsuccessful candidate, filed a writ petition as 
a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court challenging the 
appointment of the appellant as Audit Inspector, Co-operative Societies, on 
the ground that she got the appointment on the basis of a Scheduled Caste 
certificate though she did not belong to Scheduled Caste but was married 
to a member of Scheduled Caste. The authorities concerned filed a reply 
stating that proceedings to cancel the said Scheduled Caste certificate were 
under progress and, therefore, the writ petition was pre-mature. The High 
Court set aside the appointment of the appellant. 
It was contended for the appellant that in service matters PIL was not 
maintainable and the writ petition was filed because of personal animosity 
and cannot be considered to be a public interest litigation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. With regard to the scope of entertaining a petition styled 
223 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
as a public interest litigation and to see, locus standi of the petitioner 
B 
particularly in matters involving service of an employee, as has been 
-t 
emphasized by this court in various cases, the Court has to be satisfied 
about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the primafacie correctness 
or nature of information given by him; ( c) the information being not vague 
and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness 
involved. Court has to 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. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford 
C 
to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of 
redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere 
reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The 
Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies 
or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men and 
D 
must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. 
[Paras 5 and 10] [226-F-H, 227-A, 229-C] 
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481; Andhra Pradesh 
State Financial Corporation v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR 
(1994) SC 2151; and Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 
E 
265, relied on. 
F 
G 
1.2. The other aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being 
annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess 
them. Whenever frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court 
should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary 
costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out' the frivolous 
petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right 
direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of 
the Courts. [Para 7] (227-G-H, 228-A-B] 
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, relied on. 
Report of Public Interest Law, USA 1976 by 'Council for Public 
Interest Law', referred to. 
H 
1.3. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition 
i 
... ' 
.. 
,;. 
) .. 
NEETUv. STATE[PASAYAT,J.] 
225 
styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to s

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