D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for the following prayers :- "1) That in the instant Writ Petition by way of Public Interest Litigation the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions commanding the concern Respondents to immediately take proper steps for removal of unauthorized encroachment over the land and Quarters of Respondent B.C.C.L. situated at Bhuli Township All Sector Area, District-Dhanbad; AND Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions, commanding the concern Respondents to show-cause why they have not been taking action for removal of encroachment over the land and quarters of Respondent B.C.C.L. situated at Bhuli Township all Sector Area, District -Dhanbad."
(2.) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is not Public Interest Litigation at all. This is a Private Interest Litigation or a Publicity Interest Litigation, mainly for the following reasons :- a) All cannon of allegations are against a private person, namely Sri Govind Tudu, who is supplying water as well as electricity unauthorizedly. b) It is alleged in the petition that the place, which is referred to in this writ petition, is Bhuli Township, District -Dhanbad and there is a lot of encroachment by several persons. c) All these encroachers ought to remove their encroachment, but, neither the name of the encroachers, nor said Govind Tudu has been joined as party-respondents. d) It appears that there is a private owner of the property, namely, Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The owner can take steps against the encroachers. This petitioner cannot be holier than thou. When the owner is in existence and if there is any encroachment upon the property of the person, they can always go to the competent Court or before the competent authority. e) Whether there is any encroachment or not, upon property owned by another person, that all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, for which cogent and convincing evidences are required to be led. f) This petitioner is not owner of the property. g) Original owner of the property has a separate legal department and having several conducting lawyers who can take all care to their own property. This petitioner is claiming to be more careful than the owner of the property. h) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Musale v. State of M.P., 1998 6 SCC 616 in paragraph 2 as under :- "2. The writ petition filed in the High Court by the petitioner concealed material facts as is noticed in the impugned order. The petitioner appears to have filed the litigation for someone. There is no public interest involved in the petition. The High Court rightly found him to be a busybody and, in our opinion, such a meddlesome interloper cannot be permitted to maintain a public interest litigation petition. The Courts cannot allow their forum to be misused in the garb of "public interest". This special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed with Rs. 5000/- as costs." i) It has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 1 SCC 590 in paragraphs 11, 12 and 20 as under :- "11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing the gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters-Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, busybodies, meddlesome interlopers wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 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 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 be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the 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 as 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. 20. It is a disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure by the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations to see that the process of law is not abused and polluted by its members. It is high time that the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of "public interest litigation". That will be keeping in line with the high traditions of the Bar. No one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession. We would have imposed exemplary cost in this regard but taking note of the fact that the High Court had already imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/-, we do not propose to impose any further cost." j) It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) v. Union of India, 2006 5 SCC 28 in paragraphs 26 and 41 as under :- "26. For the last few years, inflow of public interest litigation has increased manifold. Considerable judicial time is spent in dealing with such cases. A person acting bona fide alone can approach the Court in public interest. Such a remedy is not open to an unscrupulous person who acts, in fact, for someone else. The liberal rule of locus standi exercised in favour of bona fide public interest litigants has immensely helped the cause of justice. Such litigants have been instrumental in drawing attention of this Court and High Courts in matters of utmost importance and in securing orders and directions for many underprivileged such as, pavement-dwellers bonded labour, prisoner's conditions, children, sexual harassment of girls and women, cases of communal riots, innocent killings, torture, long custody in prison without trial or in the matters of environment, illegal stone quarries, illegal mining, pollution of air and water, clean fuel, hazardous and polluting industries or preservation of forest as in Godavarman (1) case. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow their process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration. (See Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, 1993 AIR(SC) 892). 41. In conclusion, we dismiss the applications filed by Deepak Agarwal with costs. The applicant has abused the process of law and deserves to be sternly dealt with. Enormous judicial time has been wasted which could have been used for deciding other cases. It has also resulted in CEC and others incurring huge expenses and their wastage of time as well. In this view, we quantify costs at Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the applicant Deepak Agarwal to CEC. The costs, if not deposited with CEC within four weeks, shall be executable as a decree. The amount of cost shall be utilised for preservation of forests in the State of Chhattisgarh. The special leave petition and other applications are also disposed of in terms of this judgment." k) It has lso been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 3 SCC 402 in paragraphs 180 and 181 as under :- ' 180. In our considered view, now it has become imperative to streamline the PIL. 181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other Courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions : (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary Genera of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure tht the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive of oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
(3.) For the aforesaid reasons , this is not a Public Interest Litigation. It appears that this is a Private Interest Litigation or a Publicity Interest Litigation. Properly the parties have also not been joined as party-respondents. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). This amount will be deposited by this petitioner before the "Advocates"Association Welfare and Development Fund. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi", within six weeks from today.;