# Gurmeet Singh Soni(Adv.) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 219
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-07
- **Case number:** P.I.L. Civil No. 11520 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gurmeet-singh-soni-adv-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47026
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Public Interest Litigation-Article 226maintainability of-petitioner raised an
issue regarding award of a contract to
the
private-respondent-petition
not
espousing the cause of any member of a
disadvantageous section of the society
or any person, who is downtrodden or
for certain disabled person, who is
unable to approach the court or that the
matter
in
question
relates
to
infringement or denial of any basic
human
right
to
such
marginalized
section of the society-privte dispute
between two waring groups can not be
entertained
as
public
interest
litigation.(Para 1 to 39)

The PIL dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

6 All. Gurmeet Singh Soni(Adv.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
219
criminal proceedings. It is a choice which is
available to the tendering authority in a
matter of award of tender/ contract. This
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or, for that matter, the
petitioner can not compel the opposite parties
to allow a person against whom vigilance
enquiry or criminal proceedings are pending
to participate in the tender especially as the
petitioner does not have an indefeasible right
much less a fundamental right to carry on
business with the opposite party as held by
the Supreme Court in the case of Michigan
Rubber (supra).

11. The contention that the condition
has been tailormade to favour certain persons
it does not have the requisite factual
foundation in the writ petition. As already
stated, the condition is neither arbitrary nor
irrational. It can also not be said that it is
against public interest. As observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, greater latitude is
required to be conceded to the State
authorities unless the action of tendering
authority is found to be malicious and a
misuse of its statutory powers, which we do
not find in this case i.e. we do not find any
malice or arbitrariness nor that the condition
has been deliberately inserted to favour any
person. The decisions cited by counsel for
petitioner do not help its cause.

12. For all these reasons, we are not
inclined to interfere in this matter. We
accordingly dismiss this writ petition.
----------
(2021)06ILR A219
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
P.I.L. Civil No. 11520 of 2021

Gurmeet Singh Soni(Adv.) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjay Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

A. Public Interest Litigation-Article 226maintainability of-petitioner raised an
issue regarding award of a contract to
the
private-respondent-petition
not
espousing the cause of any member of a
disadvantageous section of the society
or any person, who is downtrodden or
for certain disabled person, who is
unable to approach the court or that the
matter
in
question
relates
to
infringement or denial of any basic
human
right
to
such
marginalized
section of the society-privte dispute
between two waring groups can not be
entertained
as
public
interest
litigation.(Para 1 to 39)

The PIL dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. People's Union for Democratic Rights & ors.
Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1982) 3 SCC 235

2.
Akhil
Bharatiya
Soshit
Karamchari
Sangh(Railway) Vs U.O.I., (1981) 1 SCC 246

3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs U.O.I .& ors.
(1984) 3 SCC 161

4. St. of Uttranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal
& ors.,(2010) 3 SCC 402

5. Tehseen Poonawalla Vs U.O.I .(2018) 6
SCC 72

6. Narendra Kumar Yadav Vs St.of U.P.,(2020)
11 ADJ 637 LB (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Awasthi and
Shri Saksham Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Shri H.P. Srivastava,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents, through video
conferencing.

2. The petitioner has instituted the
instant petition in the shape of Public
Interest Litigation claiming the following
reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or command or
direction in nature of certiorari summoning
(wrongly mentioned as 'summing' in the
petition) the record in original and
quashing the tender summary report dated
26.05.2021 through which the opposite
party no.3 has been declared successful
bidder true copy of which is marked as
Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or command or
direction in nature of mandamus directing
Opposite Parties No.2 to not to issue letter
of intent in lieu of successful bidder."

3. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner is an Advocate and a public
spirited citizen. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner is concerned
about health delivery system in the State of
Uttar Pradesh.

4. The petitioner has approached this
Court primarily being aggrieved against the
actions of the respondents relating to
acceptance of the technical bid of the
private-respondent no.3 for the purposes of
supply of ambulance services in the State
of Uttar Pradesh ignoring the fact that the
private-respondent
no.3
has
been
blacklisted in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

5. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that during the
second wave of COVID-19 Pandemic, the
heath infrastructure was exposed and was
found wanting in many spheres. It has also
been submitted that in the State of Uttar
Pradesh large number of death took place
and it is the need of hour that modern and
upgraded
medical
infrastructure
be
prepared to face any future untoward
pandemic or such medical emergency.

6. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that the
respondent no.2 with a view to strengthen
and to provide for Advance Life Support
Ambulance Services in all the districts of
Uttar Pradesh, invited bids from private
sector
related
to
Integrated
Referral
Transport System to be operated round the
clock in the State.

7. It has further been urged that
Clause 2.1.17 of the tender bidding
document
specifically
state
that
a
prospective bidder should not have failed to
perform any contract or be expelled from
any project or contract by any public entity
or has abandoned or have refused to
perform its obligation in any contract.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the privaterespondent no.3 was providing ambulance
services in the State of Madhya Pradesh
under the National Health Mission. The
services of the private-respondent were
found deficient and for the said reason, the
National Heath Mission, State of Madhya
Pradesh terminated the services by means
of the order dated 22.12.2020, a copy of
which has been brought on record as
Annexure No.3 with the petition.
6 All. Gurmeet Singh Soni(Adv.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
221

9. It has also been submitted that the
aforesaid deficiencies and discrepancies in
the services rendered by the privaterespondent no.3 also attracted attention of
the print media. The articles published in a
section of print media has been brought on
record
as
Annexures
No.4
and
5
respectively with the petition. It has also
been alleged that the National Health
Mission issued a letter to the privaterespondent no.3 dated 25.01.2021 imposing
penalty which has also been brought on
record as Annexure no.6 with the petition.

10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is
submitted that the private-respondent no.3,
who has a tainted record, his bid could not
have
been
accepted
and
the
Staterespondents by ignoring the aforesaid and
having accepted the bid of the privaterespondent no.3 on 21.05.2021 in effect is
not only violating the term of the tender bid
but giving a contract of such an important
nature to a tainted company as respondent
no.3, would jeopardize the purpose for
which the contract is to be issued.

11. The services providing ambulance
service is of utmost importance and plays a
very critical role in saving lives of the
persons and especially in view of the
expected third wave of COVID-19, such
vital services ought not to be granted to
such a company and for the said reason the
petitioner seeks quashing of the acceptance
of the tender bid of the private-respondent
no.3 and further relief has been sought that
a direction be issued to the respondent no.2
not to issue a letter of intent to the said
successful bidder.

12. The learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
has raised preliminary objections. Shri H.P.
Srivastava,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
submits
that
the
petitioner has not complied with the
provisions of Chapter-XXII Rule 1(3-A) of
the Allahabad High Court Rules inasmuch
as the petitioner has not disclosed his
credentials as required.

13. It has further been submitted that
the above petition does not appear to be
motivated with any public spirit rather it
appears to be goaded by oblique motive
and appears to be a proxy petition at the
behest by some unsuccessful bidder or a
third party.

14.

To
buttress
his
aforesaid
submissions, the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has further drawn the
attention of the Court to the documents
which have been brought on record as
Annexure no.3 and 6 particularly and it has
been submitted that there is no way the
aforesaid documents could not have been in
the possession of the petitioner. It has been
submitted that Annexure no.3 is a letter,
which has been issued by the Mission
Director, National Health Mission, Madhya
Pradesh and is addressed to the Project
Head of Jigitsa Health Care Limited.
Similarly, the document which has been
brought on record as Annexure no.6 has
also been issued by the Deputy Director,
Integrated
Referral
Transport
System,
National Health Mission, Madhya Pradesh
and is addressed to the Project Head, Jigitsa
Health Care Limited.

15. It has been urged by the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the
said documents have been issued and
addressed to a private party. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he has obtained
the aforesaid documents under the Right to
Information Act nor any averment to the
aforesaid effect has been stated in the
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition. This clearly indicates that an
unsuccessful bidder is attempting to thwart
the tendering process by filing the instant
petition in the shape of Public Interest
Litigation which at the outset reeks of
malafides and the pious objective of a
Public Interest Litigation is being polluted,
accordingly the petition deserves to be
dismissed at the threshold.

16. The Court has heard learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the
record.

17. At the very outset, it will be
necessary to notice the object of a Public
Interest Litigation. The term Public Interest
Litigation has been defined in the Black's
Law Dictionary, 6th edition :-

"Public Interest is something in which
the public, the community at large, has
some pecuniary interest, or some interest
by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected. It does not mean anything so
narrow as mere curiosity, or as interests of
particular localities, which may be affected
by matters in question. Interest shared by
citizens generally in affairs of local, State
or national Government."

18. In, The Major Law Lexicon by P.
Ramanatha Aiyar, the Public Interest
Litigation has been defined as "lexically the
expression 'PIL' means a legal action
initiated in a Court of law for the
enforcement of public interest or general
interest in which the public or a class of
community has pecuniary interest or some
interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected".

19. The Apex Court in the case of
People's Union for Democratic Rights &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in
(1982) 3 SCC 235 has defined the Public
Interest Litigation as a cooperative or
Collaborative effort on the part of the
petitioner, the State or public authority and
the judiciary to secure observance of the
constitutional or legal rights, benefits and
privileges upon poor, downtrodden and
vulnerable sections of the society.

20. The Public Interest Litigation is
an important jurisdiction which is exercised
by the Constitutional Courts be it Supreme
Court or the High Court. It has well settled
that any authority which is vested or
endowed with great powers, such authority
must exercise the same with great caution
and responsibility.

21. The Apex Court as well as the
High Courts having found that large
sections of the society because of extreme
poverty, ignorance, discrimination and
illiteracy have been denied justice for time
immemorial as they have no access to
justice. Predominantly, to provide access to
justice to the poor, deprived, vulnerable,
discriminated and marginalized section of
the society, the Constitutional Courts
encouraged and propelled the public
interest litigation. This jurisdiction has
been created and carved out by judicial
creativity and craftsmanship.

22. The Apex Court in the case of
Akhil
Bharatiya
Soshit
Karamchari
Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India,
reported in (1981) 1 SCC 246 in Para-62
has held as under:-

"62.
...
Our
current
processual
jurisprudence is not of individualistic
Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad-based and
people-oriented, and envisions access to
justice through ''class actions', ''public
interest litigation' and ''representative
6 All. Gurmeet Singh Soni(Adv.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
223
proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in large
numbers
seeking
remedies
in
courts
through collective proceedings, instead of
being driven to an expensive plurality of
litigations,
is
an
affirmation
of
participative justice in our democracy. We
have no hesitation in holding that the
narrow concept of ''cause of action' and
''person aggrieved' and individual litigation
is
becoming
obsolescent
in
some
jurisdictions." (emphasis in original)

23. The Apex Court in the case of
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
& Ors., reported in 1984 (3) SCC 161
entertained a petition of even an unregistered
association espousing the cause of over
downtrodden or its members observing that
cause
of
"little
Indians"
can
be
established/espoused by any person having
no interest in the matter. In the said public
interest litigation where certain workmen
were living in bondage and inhuman
conditions this cause was brought to the
notice of the Court. The Apex Court noticed
that it was not expected by the Government
that it should raise preliminary objection that
no fundamental rights of the petitioner or the
workmen on whose behalf the petition has
been filed, have been infringed.

24. The Apex Court further noted that
the public interest litigation is not in the
nature of adversarial litigation but it is a
challenge
and
an
opportunity
to
the
Government and its officers to make basic
human rights meaningful for the deprived and
vulnerable sections of the community and to
insure them social and economic justice
which
is
the
signature
tune
of
the
Constitution.

25. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that it
would be seen that the concept of "person
aggrieved", was diluted in context of public
interest litigation which primarily have been
divided in three phases. The Apex Court in
the case of State of Uttranchal v. Balwant
Singh Chaufal & Ors., reported in (2010) 3
SCC 402 in Para-43 of the said report have
noticed the three phases of public interest
litigation
which
is
being
reproduced
hereinafter:-

"43. In this judgment, we would like to
deal with the origin and development of public
interest litigation. We deem it appropriate to
broadly divide the public interest litigation in
three phases:

- Phase I.--It deals with cases of this Court
where directions and orders were passed
primarily to protect fundamental rights under
Article 21 of the marginalised groups and
sections of the society who because of extreme
poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot
approach this Court or the High Courts.

- Phase II.--It deals with the cases relating
to
protection,
preservation
of
ecology,
environment, forests, marine life, wildlife,
mountains, rivers, historical monuments, etc.
etc.

- Phase III.--It deals with the directions
issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity,
transparency and integrity in governance."

26. The Apex Court in the case of
Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India,
reported in (2018) 6 SCC 72 had the occasions
to consider what is a public interest litigation as
well as it also noticed the manner in which this
noble instrument which was devised by the
Courts to cater to the Constitutional obligations
in the interest of the public is being misused and
its repercussion on the system and the relevant
portion reads as under:-

"96. Public interest litigation has
developed as a powerful tool to espouse the
cause of the marginalised and oppressed.
Indeed, that was the foundation on which
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public interest jurisdiction was judicially
recognised in situations such as those in
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
[Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,
(1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389] .
Persons who were unable to seek access to
the judicial process by reason of their
poverty, ignorance or illiteracy are faced
with a deprivation of fundamental human
rights. Bonded labour and undertrials
(among others) belong to that category.
The hallmark of a public interest petition is
that a citizen may approach the court to
ventilate the grievance of a person or class
of persons who are unable to pursue their
rights. Public interest litigation has been
entertained by relaxing the rules of
standing. The essential aspect of the
procedure is that the person who moves the
court has no personal interest in the
outcome of the proceedings apart from a
general standing as a citizen before the
court. This ensures the objectivity of those
who pursue the grievance before the court.
Environmental
jurisprudence
has
developed around the rubric of public
interest petitions. Environmental concerns
affect the present generation and the future.
Principles such as the polluter pays and the
public trust doctrine have evolved during
the adjudication of public interest petitions.
Over time, public interest litigation has
become a powerful instrument to preserve
the rule of law and to ensure the
accountability of and transparency within
structures of governance. Public interest
litigation is in that sense a valuable
instrument and jurisdictional tool to
promote structural due process.

97. Yet over time, it has been realised
that this jurisdiction is capable of being
and has been brazenly misutilised by
persons with a personal agenda. At one end
of that spectrum are those cases where
public interest petitions are motivated by a
desire to seek publicity. At the other end of
the spectrum are petitions which have been
instituted at the behest of business or
political rivals to settle scores behind the
facade of a public interest litigation. The
true face of the litigant behind the façade is
seldom unravelled. These concerns are
indeed reflected in the judgment of this
Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant
Singh Chaufal [State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC
(L&S) 807] . Underlining these concerns,
this Court held thus : (SCC p. 453, para
143)

"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has
been noticed that such an important
jurisdiction which has been carefully
carved out, created and nurtured with great
care and caution by the courts, is being
blatantly abused by filing some petitions
with oblique motives. We think time has
come when genuine and bona fide public
interest litigation must be encouraged
whereas frivolous public interest litigation
should be discouraged. In our considered
opinion, we have to protect and preserve
this important jurisdiction in the larger
interest of the people of this country but we
must take effective steps to prevent and
cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and
non-monetary directions by the courts."

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 litigations 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
6 All. Gurmeet Singh Soni(Adv.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
225
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."

27. In view of the law noticed
hereinabove
and
drawing
inspiration
therefrom, if we examine the averments
made in the instant petition as well as the
relief claimed, it would be seen that at best
it would fall within the third phase of
public interest litigation as indicated by the
Apex Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal
(supra).

28. Considering the fact that the
instant petition has been preferred as public
interest litigation by a practicing Advocate,
it will be necessary to note whether the
petitioner has scrupulously complied with
the provisions of Chapter-XXII Rule 1(3A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 which has been amended and
incorporated
w.e.f.
01.05.2010.
The
relevant Rule (3-A) reads as under:-

''(3-A) In addition to satisfying the
requirements of the other rules in this
chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a
Public Interest Litigation, should precisely
and specifically state, in the affidavit to be
sworn by him giving his credentials, the
public cause he is seeking to espouse; that
he has no personal or private interest in the
matter; that there is no authoritative
pronouncement by the Supreme Court or
High Court on the question raised; and that
the result of the litigation will not lead to
any undue gain to himself or anyone
associated with him, or any undue loss to
any person, body of persons or the State.''

29. A plain reading of the aforesaid
rule would indicate that amongst other
disclosure, any person filing a writ petition
in shape of Public Interest Litigation must
precisely
and
specifically
state
his
credentials and the public cause he is
seeking to espouse. In compliance of the
aforesaid rule, the petitioner ought to have
stated his credentials clearly.

30. The word "credential" has a
specific connotation and means the quality
and experience of a person that makes him
suitable for doing a particular job. This
aspect of the matter has already been
noticed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Narendra Kumar
Yadav v. State of U.P., reported in 2020
(11) ADJ 637 (LB) (DB) and the relevant
portion thereof is reproduced hereinafter:-
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"7. The dictionary meaning of the
word 'credentials' is the qualities and the
experience of a person that make him
suitable for doing a particular job. The
Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary,
2nd Edition, explains credentials as the
quality which makes a person perfect for
the job or a document that is a proof that
he
has
the
training
and
education
necessary to prove that he is a person
qualified for doing the particular job.

8. The petitioner herein claims to be a
Social Worker, but in order to substantiate
the nature of the social work he is doing or
seeks to do, he has not disclosed any
experience that makes him suitable or
perfect for doing the said job and no
document in proof has been furnished."

31. The word 'credential' has been
defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 8th
Edition: "1. A document or other evidence
that proves one's authority or expertise. 2.
A testimonial that a person is entitled to
credit or to the right to exercise official
power. 3. The letter of credence given to an
ambassador or other representative of a
foreign country. 4. Parliamentary law.
Evidence of a delegate's entitlement to be
seated and vote in a convention or other
deliberative assembly." However, for the
present purposes the meaning at S.No.1
above is the most relevant and apt for the
purposes of construing Rule 1 (3-A) of
Chapter-XXII of Allahabad High Court
Rules.

32. Applying the aforesaid principle as
well as definition of word "credential" to the
instant case, it would reveal that the petitioner
in Paragraph-2 has stated that he is a public
spirited person and he has no personal and
private interest in this public interest
litigation. In Paragraph-4, he has made an
averment which reads as under:-

"The petitioner is a practicing lawyer of
this Hon'ble Court and is very well aware
about his duties and rights towards the
society and is very much concerned about the
prevailing situation of pandemic Covid-19 as
many lives have been lost due to pandemic.
And the petitioner is concerned about health
delivery system in State of Uttar Pradesh."

33. Apart from the aforesaid paragraph,
the instant petition does not make any
averment regarding the credential of the
petitioner. It is nowhere indicated that what
public or social work has been done by the
petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner being a
lawyer and having himself stated that he is
well aware of his duties and responsibility
towards the society ought to have been more
candid and ought to have scrupulously
complied with the aforesaid Rule indicating
his credential clearly. Apparently, this Court
finds that insofar as the question of credential
is concerned, there is nothing in the petition
indicating the same.

34. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to
note that the petitioner has not disclosed any
credential. Merely because he is a lawyer
does not in any manner grant him any
privilege for his petition to be treated
differently. Even otherwise, there is nothing
on record to indicate that the petitioner has
preferred the instant petition espousing the
cause of any member of a disadvantageous
section of the society or any person, who is
downtrodden or for certain disabled person,
who is unable to approach the Court or that
the matter in question relates to infringement
or denial of any basic human right to such
marginalized section of the society which
enables the petitioner to espouse their cause.

35. On the contrary from the
averments in the petition, it indicates that
the petitioner is challenging the grant of
6 All. Gurmeet Singh Soni(Adv.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
227
contract in favour of the private-respondent
no.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also could not reply as to how he is in
possession of the documents particularly
Annexure nos.3 and 6 which have been
annexed with the petition.

36. Learned counsel for the petitioner
could not dispute the fact that the said
documents have not been obtained by the
petitioner under the Right to Information
Act.

37. At this stage, this Court is
reminded of the observations made by the
Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh
Chaufal & Ors. (supra) wherein the Apex
Court has dealt with the issues of abuse of
public interest litigation and the remedial
measures by which its misuse can be
prevented or curbed and the relevant
portion thereof reads as under:-

"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has
been noticed that such an important
jurisdiction which has been carefully
carved out, created and nurtured with great
care and caution by the courts, is being
blatantly abused by filing some petitions
with oblique motives. We think time has
come when genuine and bona fide public
interest litigation must be encouraged
whereas frivolous public interest litigation
should be discouraged. In our considered
opinion, we have to protect and preserve
this important jurisdiction in the larger
interest of the people of this country but we
must take effective steps to prevent and
cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and
non- monetary directions by the courts.

144. In BALCO Employees' Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India & Others AIR
2002 SC 350, this Court recognized that
there have been, in recent times, increasing
instances of abuse of public interest
litigation. Accordingly, the court has
devised a number of strategies to ensure
that the attractive brand name of public
interest litigation should not be allowed to
be used for suspicious products of mischief.
Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited
standing in PIL to individuals "acting
bonafide." Secondly, the Supreme Court
has
sanctioned
the
imposition
of
"exemplary costs" as a deterrent against
frivolous and vexatious public interest
litigations. Thirdly, the Supreme Court has
instructed the High Courts to be more
selective in entertaining the public interest
litigations.

170. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware
(supra) this court again cautioned and
observed that the court must look into the
petition carefully and ensure that there is
genuine public interest involved in the case
before invoking its jurisdiction. The court
should be careful that its jurisdiction is not
abused by a person or a body of persons to
further his or their personal causes or to
satisfy his or their personal grudge or
grudges. The stream of justice should not
be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous
litigants.

171. In Neetu (supra) this court
observed that under the guise of redressing
a public grievance the public interest
litigation should not encroach upon the
sphere reserved by the Constitution to the
Executive and the Legislature.

172. In M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) this court observed that the
judges who exercise the jurisdiction should
be extremely careful to see that behind the
beautiful veil of PIL, an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity-
seeking is not lurking. The court should
ensure that there is no abuse of the process
of the court.

173. When we revert to the facts of the
present then the conclusion is obvious that
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this case is a classic case of the abuse of
the process of the court. In the present case
a practicing lawyer has deliberately abused
the process of the court. In that process, he
has made a serious attempt to demean an
important
constitutional
office.
The
petitioner ought to have known that the
controversy which he has been raising in
the petition stands concluded half a century
ago and by a Division Bench judgment of
Nagpur High Court in the case of Karkare
(supra) the said case was approved by a
Constitution Bench of this court. The
controversy involved in this case is no
longer res integra. It is unfortunate that
even after such a clear enunciation of the
legal position, a large number of similar
petitions have been filed from time to time
in various High Courts. The petitioner
ought to have refrained from filing such a
frivolous petition.

174. A degree of precision and purity
in presentation is a sine qua non for a
petition filed by a member of the Bar under
the label of public interest litigation. It is
expected from a member of the Bar to at
least carry out the basic research whether
the point raised by him is res integra or
not. The lawyer who files such a petition
cannot plead ignorance."

38. From the perusal of the averments
made in the writ petition all what is brought
to the fore is that the petitioner is raising an
issue regarding award of a contract to the
private-respondent. It cannot be discounted
that the petitioner may have been set up by
the rival group since no credential has been
mentioned nor it is a petition which has
been filed on behalf of any marginalized
section of the society. Any issue which
may be in the realm of a private dispute
between two waring groups cannot be
entertained as a public interest litigation.

39. For the foregoing reasons, this
Court is of the considered view that there is
no element of public interest involved.
Accordingly,
the
petition
cannot
be
entertained as a public interest litigation
and
is
dismissed.
However,
in
the
circumstances, this Court refrains from
imposing any costs.

40. That party shall file computer
generated copy of order downloaded from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a
self attested identity proof of the said
person
(s)
(preferably
Aadhar
Card)
mentioning the mobile number (s) to which
the said Aadhar Card is linked.

41.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of the computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)06ILR A228
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Second Appeal 542 of 2020

Vijay Pal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Kumar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Udayan Nandan, Sri Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahesh Sharma, Sri Sharad Sinha, Sri Dinesh
Rai