GANDHI, J. - (1.) THIS public interest litigation has been presented by the petitioner, a lawyer of the Bar, seeking directions to the respondents to have thorough investigation into death and injuries inflicted to numerous persons who were involved in scrap dealings.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed on basis of the Newspaper report. No other evidence is on record. The petitioner has not taken any trouble to find out as to whether such incidents are taking place regularly and that too because of the material of scrap. There is no supporting evidence. No home work or enquiry has been done by the petitioner that the respondents are not holding any enquiry in such cases. It was the duty of the petitioner to make out before the Court that the State is not diligent in dealing with such cases and the rights of the people are being trampled. No such incident has been shown by the petitioner except report of the Newspaper. The Apex Court has indicated the parametres for filing the petitions by the individual persons and associations. The petitioner who is the member of the Bar has not shown to the Court that he is interested in such social work and has also been a member of such an organization that raises issues of public interest and protection of the rights of the people. Only publication of one death in the Newspaper has been made basis for seeking direction to the respondents for holding the investigations in scrap death cases. No trouble has been taken to find out as to whether that case is being investigated by the State or not. The Court has been called upon by the petitioner to take upon it and issue directions to the respondents whereas it has not been made out that investigation sought have not been commenced by the respondents. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by Mr. H. V. Nandwana, learned Government Counsel representing the State of Rajasthan that in this particular case, taking notice of the occurrences, investigation have already been started and are in progress and in one of the cases, challan has also been presented. Dealing with a case of public interest litigation by a lawyer, the Supreme Court in the case of Rohit Pandey vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702 held as under:      " 2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures, were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12. 2. 2004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i. e. on 7. 10. 2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the chargesheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner. " The Apex Court dealing with an another case of public interest litigation in the case Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Another vs. C. K. Rajan and Others reported in (2003) 7 SCC 546 observed as under: (Para 50) "50. The principles evolved by this Court in this behalf may be suitably summarized as under: (i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. (See S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981 (supp) SCC 87, People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494, Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 and Janata Dal vs. H. S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 ). (ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings, (See Charles Sobraj vs. Supdt. Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 ). (iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In Mrs. Mankeka Sanjay Gandhi vs. Miss Rani Jethmalani, AIR 1979 SC 468, it was held:      " 2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant, environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touch-stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the Court may weigh the circumstances. " (See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal vs. B. D. Agarwal 2003 (5) Scale 138 ). (iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. (See Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, S. P. Gupta (supra), People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra), D. C. Wadhwa (Dr.) vs. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 and Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333 ). (v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra ). (vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. (See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U. P. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Forward Construction Co. vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), (1986) 1 SCC 100 ). (vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. Union of India 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251 ). (viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a Court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the State of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 ). (ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra), Rakesh Chandra Narayan vs. State of Bihar 1989 Supp (1) SCC 644 and A. P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M. V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718 ). In Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (1987) 2 SCC 295, this Court held : (SCC app. 334-35, para 61 ).      " 61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants. " In Janata Dal vs. H. S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305, this Court opined: (SCC P. 348, para 109) "109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will along have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. " The Court will not ordinarily transgress into a police. It shall also take utmost care not to transgress its jurisdiction while purporting to protect the rights of the people from being violated. In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664, it was held: (SCC pp. 762-63, paras 229 & 232 ).      " 229. It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project is undertaken. any delay in the execution of the project means overrun in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of latches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the court at that time. Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Latches is one of them. 232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction. " (x) The Court would ordinarily not step out of the known areas of judicial review. The High Courts although may pass an order for doing complete justice to the parties, they do not have a power akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India. (xi) Ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation questioning the constitutionality or validity of a Statute or a Statutory Rule. " The Supreme Court dealing with a case of public interest litigation by a lawyer in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 590 held as under:      " 12. 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 behind 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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not 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 considerations. 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. "
(3.) KEEPING in view the statement of the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan that investigations in such cases have been commenced and even challans are being filed. Thus, there appears no justification for proceeding with the public interest litigation. However, the public interest litigation is otherwise not entertainable for the simple reason that the petitioner has not collected the evidence, done any homework for making out a case that the people for whose rights the public interest litigation has been filed, are not in a position to seek justice from the respondents or approach the Court for any reason and that unless the petition is taken up, the interest of justice will not be met with. This has not been made out by the petitioner, a lawyer. He has filed this petition only on the report published in the Newspaper which is not sufficient without supporting material for entertaining the public interest litigation. We do not find any public spirited interest in the petition, therefore, the petition is dismissed. .;