- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.B. Sahai, appearing for Poorvanchal Gramin Bank and represents all the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner No. 1, in response to the banks invitation, offered a premises owned by her to be let out to the respondent-bank. The offer was accepted but that the Management of the Bank has subsequently proposed to shift the bank to a different place at Khirideeha. It is contended that the branch is of 27 years old and is only bank catering to area. The shifting of the bank will cause hardship to the residents and thus, petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 have also joined in public interest restraining the bank from shifting its branch.
(3.) In Neetu v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2007 1 UPLBEC 412 the Supreme Court has reiterated the concern of the Court in allowing the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation, wearing the mask of public interest litigation to get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions. The Court observed in para 10 as follows: Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that being the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, 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 allowed to 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 on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.;