VITHALDAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE should state at the threshold that this writ petition filed as a public Interest Litigation (PIL) admittedly by a relative of the eight persons against whom he wanted the Commissioner (Vigilance)Income Tax Department, Hyderabad to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, is totally unjustified and vexatious apart from being totally vague. The petitioner except stating in his representation dated 5-11-1999 addressed to the Commissioner that those eight persons named by him in the representation have accumulated huge wealth and money and they are also involved in private money lending business has not chosen to furnish any details whatsoever. It is held and reiterated by this Court and the Apex Court that a probono public character who files PILs. , has the responsibility of making necessary investigation in the first instance and to bring him findings to the notice of the concerned authorities before moving the constitutional Courts by way of PILs. The very fact that the petitioner happens to be the relative of the eight persons against whom he wanted the enquiry indicates that the petitioner is not a probono public character but the writ petition is filed for extraneous consideration.

(2.) THIS Court speaking through one of us (SRN, J) while dealing with unscrupulous and unjustified PIL in Thakur Bahadur Singh v. Government of A. P. , had to observe in Para 12 as under:

(3.) PIL is a legal technique, a noble responsible technique which could be resorted to only by a bona fide public character surcharged by only public interest and nothing else. Under the garb of PIL no person can be permitted to abuse the process of law and waste the judicial time as pointed out in the above judgment.