- (1.)This public interest litigation has been preferred for the following relief:-
"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1,2 and 3 to make the enquiry of entire work of Gram Pradhan, respondent no. 4 and take legal action against accused persons."

(2.)If a Pradhan commits financial irregularity or misconduct, there is a statutory rule under the "U.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ (REMOVAL OF PRADHANS, UP PRADHANS AND MEMBERS) ENQUIRY RULES, 1997". The petitioner without taking recourse to remedy available to him has filed this PIL. We do not find the issue raised in this PIL of great public importance. We are of the view that such type of PIL should be discouraged. Recently, the Supreme Court has expressed its anguish in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and another, 2018 6 SCC 72. The court has held that the High Court should not entertain the public interest litigation which does not have any larger public interest. The relevant part of the judgment of Supreme Court is extracted below:-
"98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space."

(3.)In the above case, the Supreme Court referred and followed the principle laid down by it in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 3 SCC 402, wherein the Court has revisited the entire law on public interest litigation. The Court has traced its origin in U.S. In 1976, Ford Foundation set up the Council for Public Interest Law. The Council in its Report defined the "Public Interest Litigation" in the following terms:-
"27. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined "public interest litigation" in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:

"10....Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts providing legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others." (M/s Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors., 2008 AIR(SC) 913, para 19)."