- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. Petitioners made this writ petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (sometimes called as PIL) praying inter alia as follows: " (I) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus/prohibition thereby prohibiting the construction of the proposed 'haj House' over the land of Khasra 1399 (area 4. 535 acre) at village Arthala, situated at the bank ('doob kshetra') of river Hindon, near the National Highway No. 58 E in Pargana Loni, tehsil and District Ghaziabad. (II) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately stop, the construction of the proposed 'haj House' over the land of Khasra 1399 (area 4. 535 acre) at village Arthala, situated at the bank ('doob kshetra') of river Hindon, near the National Highway No. 58 E in Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. (III) Issue any other writ, order, or direction, which this Court may deem fit and proper. (IV) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. " Mr. V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petitioners, contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh has leased out a land to the Haj Samiti, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for a period of 30 years in November, 2004 by the side of river Hindon at Ghaziabad, which is "doob kshetra" belonging to the irrigation department. Subsequently, Haj Samiti has taken the possession in February, 2005. On 30th March, 2005 the Chief Minister of the State of U. P. laid down the foundation stone of the proposed structure of Haj House on the said land. According to the petitioners, in the inaugural speech the Chief Minister said that the construction will be made by September, 2005 and the inauguration will be made on the eve of the Gandhi Jayanti on 1st October, 2005. According to him, the Chief Minister announced grant of Rs. 2 Crores for construction of Haj House. He relied upon the certain paper cuttings of the daily newspapers, etc. and said that the State should not misuse the public exchequer. Secondly, construction of such Haj House will interfere with the construction of National Highway under the National Highway Authority of India. Thirdly, it will interfere with the Gas pipeline of the Gas Authority of India Limited. Fourthly, it will interfere with the Air Force activities. Lastly, making of Haj House at the site will destroy the communal harmony.
(2.) MR. S. M. A. Kazmi, learned Chief Standing Counsel (now Advocate General) contended that writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioners have no locus standi to make the writ petition. The petitioner No. 1 is not at all a registered organisation. The deponent, who is respondent No. 3 herein, has filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition describing himself as General Secretary of the organisation. One Mahesh Kumar Ahuja, although not made party petitioner herein, is playing the role behind the screen. If this Court sees newspaper cuttings annexed with the public interest litigation, which normally the Court does not look in other litigations, name of Sri Mahesh Kumar Ahuja will be available. He has been shown as office bearer of the petitioner No. 1. Such Sri Mahesh Kumar Ahuja was or still is plaintiff to a suit, being numbered as Suit No. 472 of 2001, Mahesh Kumar Ahuja and Anr. v. Collector, Ghaziabad and Ors. , which was instituted on the self same cause of action. An application for injunction was made therein, which was rejected by the civil Court. Petitioners 'suppressed the material fact and filed this public interest litigation. Even during the pendency of the writ petition, in the name of one Sanjeev Tyagi a similar writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court which was dismissed in limine on 25th November, 2005. The prayers as made in the suit, being Suit No. 472 of 2005, are as follows: " (a) that judgment and decree be passed in favour of plaintiffs, permanently restraining the defendants from constructing and laying foundation stone of 'haj House' on 30-3- 2005 over 1/3rd part of Plot A. B. C. D. Khasra No. 1399 area 16. 25 acres situate in village Arthana, Ghaziabad. (b) that the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendants. (c) that any other relief be granted against the defendants, which is in plaintiffs' interest. " The prayers made in the writ petition before the Supreme Court are as follows: " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of PROHIBION thereby prohibiting the construction of the proposed Haj House at Hindon River Bridge near Village Arthala, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 13 to immediately stop the construction of the said proposed Haj House at the said village as the same is in violation of various laws of the land as well as the Constitution of India and would create communal tension between Hindu and Muslims and other factors; (iii) Award the costs of the present proceedings in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; (iv) Pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice. "
(3.) NO doubt all the proceedings were initiated on the self same cause of action. According to us, public interest litigation cannot be said to be maintainable as a matter of course whenever any citizen or group of citizens under any nomenclature file the writ petition of such nature. If the writ Court starts entertaining public interest litigation on each and every issue taken out by anyone at any point of time or of any nature then the Court will be flooded by such type of litigations. On the other hand, in the garb of public interest litigation many private or personal or publicity interest litigations will develop, when it would be difficult to discard them. Therefore, there should be an appropriate check and balance. The Supreme Court and various High Courts already found the danger and, as such, passed various orders to restrict the scope and ambit of public interest litigations. In 2004 (3) SCC 349, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W. B. , the Supreme Court held that 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 any oblique consideration. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulged in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserves to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs.;