# New Sun Education Society and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 401
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-02-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 9059 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Bharati Sapru
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/new-sun-education-society-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41206
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Public
Interest Litigation- Society-challenging
advertisement-seeking reservation quota
for
physically
handicapped
personneither public injury-or omission of state
or public authority-or fundamental right
or statutory right those poor down
trodden, ignorant, illiterates affected-No
contribution to wards the cause of
handicapped persons either part or in
present disclosed-held-petitioner not a
bonafide
litigant-petitioner
dismissed
with cost of Rs.50,000/-

Held: Para 29, 35 & 36

Thus, in view of the above, the ratio of
all these judgements is that there must
be a public injury and public wrong
caused by wrongful or ultra vires acts or
omission of the state or a public
authority. It is for the enforcement of
basic human rights of weaker sections of
the
community
who
are
poor,
downtrodden, ignorant, illiterates and
whose fundamental rights and statutory
rights have been violated. In fact, it is
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
for compelling the executive to carry out
its constitutional and legal obligations. It
must not be frivolous litigation by
persons having vested interest.

In view of the above, it is evident that
the petitioners are not bona fide litigants
nor they can be held to be public spirited
persons who have any right to abuse the
process of the Court by filing this kind of
petition. The petition is dismissed with
the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand
Only),
which
shall
be
recovered
by
the
District
Collector,
Aligarh from the petitioners as arrears of
land revenue and shall be deposited in
the
account
of
the
Mediation
and
Conciliation Centre of the High Court,
Allahabad.

A copy of this order be transmitted to the
learned District Collector, Aligarh within
a week for compliance.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC 1044, AIR 1977 SC 276, AIR
1987 SC 331, AIR 1989 SC 49, AIR 1996 SC
2736, AIR 1998 SC 3104, AIR 1999 SC 943,
AIR 1976 SC 578, (2000) 7 SCC 552, (2000) 7
SCC 465, AIR 1981 SC 298, AIR 1981 SC 344,
AIR 1982 SC 149, 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 116, AIR
1983 SC 339, AIR 1985 SC 910, JT (1988) 4
SC 557, AIR 1995 SC 1847, AIR 1993 SC 1769,
1994 (Supp) 1 SCC 145, (1999) 1 SCC 53,
(2000) 7 SCC 618, AIR 2001 SC 1544, (2003)
7 SCC 546, (2003) 8 SCC 100), AIR 1999 SC
393, AIR 2002 SC 350, (2005) 1 SCC 590,
(2005) 3 SCC 91, (2007) 14 SCALE 500,
(2005) 5 SCC 136, (2006) 5 SCC 28, AIR 1993
SC 892, AIR 1999 SC 114, 2005 AIR SCW 46,
JT 2007 (1) SC 452

## Text

2 All] New Sun Education Society and another V. State of U.P. and others
401
the trade tax imposed upon the dealer, to
the customer does not mean that if the
dealer does not collect the tax or fails to
pass on that liability, the dealer can be
absolved from paying the tax which is
primarily imposed upon the dealer.

8. In the light of the above
reasoning, the words "realized from" in
Section 3 (f) must be interpreted to mean
"realizable" from the customer or billed to
the
customer.
The
column
in
the
prescribed Form L.T. III for mentioning
the amount of luxury tax collected from
each of the occupants is only for
verification by the department and in our
opinion it would not lead to the inference
that there would be no liability to pay the
tax on the part of the hotelier if he fails to
realize the tax from the customer. Nonrealisation from the customer would
obviously be due to the fault of the
hotelier in granting credit to undeserving
persons. In such a case the hotelier cannot
be absolved of the liability to pay tax.

9. In the circumstances, we are of
the opinion that Section 5 (2) read with
Rule 3 lay down that the liability to pay
interest would start running from the end
of five days after the end of the month to
which the tax relates, that is the month in
which the luxury was availed by the
customer in the hotel and consequent
liability to pay the luxury tax arose. The
respondent no. 3 will, accordingly,
determine and charge the interest from the
petitioners.

10. The writ petitions is disposed of
with the aforesaid directions.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 9059
of 2008

New Sun Education Society and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Arvind Srivastava
Sri Ravindra Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pushpendra Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Public
Interest Litigation- Society-challenging
advertisement-seeking reservation quota
for
physically
handicapped
personneither public injury-or omission of state
or public authority-or fundamental right
or statutory right those poor down
trodden, ignorant, illiterates affected-No
contribution to wards the cause of
handicapped persons either part or in
present disclosed-held-petitioner not a
bonafide
litigant-petitioner
dismissed
with cost of Rs.50,000/-

Held: Para 29, 35 & 36

Thus, in view of the above, the ratio of
all these judgements is that there must
be a public injury and public wrong
caused by wrongful or ultra vires acts or
omission of the state or a public
authority. It is for the enforcement of
basic human rights of weaker sections of
the
community
who
are
poor,
downtrodden, ignorant, illiterates and
whose fundamental rights and statutory
rights have been violated. In fact, it is
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
for compelling the executive to carry out
its constitutional and legal obligations. It
must not be frivolous litigation by
persons having vested interest.

In view of the above, it is evident that
the petitioners are not bona fide litigants
nor they can be held to be public spirited
persons who have any right to abuse the
process of the Court by filing this kind of
petition. The petition is dismissed with
the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand
Only),
which
shall
be
recovered
by
the
District
Collector,
Aligarh from the petitioners as arrears of
land revenue and shall be deposited in
the
account
of
the
Mediation
and
Conciliation Centre of the High Court,
Allahabad.

A copy of this order be transmitted to the
learned District Collector, Aligarh within
a week for compliance.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC 1044, AIR 1977 SC 276, AIR
1987 SC 331, AIR 1989 SC 49, AIR 1996 SC
2736, AIR 1998 SC 3104, AIR 1999 SC 943,
AIR 1976 SC 578, (2000) 7 SCC 552, (2000) 7
SCC 465, AIR 1981 SC 298, AIR 1981 SC 344,
AIR 1982 SC 149, 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 116, AIR
1983 SC 339, AIR 1985 SC 910, JT (1988) 4
SC 557, AIR 1995 SC 1847, AIR 1993 SC 1769,
1994 (Supp) 1 SCC 145, (1999) 1 SCC 53,
(2000) 7 SCC 618, AIR 2001 SC 1544, (2003)
7 SCC 546, (2003) 8 SCC 100), AIR 1999 SC
393, AIR 2002 SC 350, (2005) 1 SCC 590,
(2005) 3 SCC 91, (2007) 14 SCALE 500,
(2005) 5 SCC 136, (2006) 5 SCC 28, AIR 1993
SC 892, AIR 1999 SC 114, 2005 AIR SCW 46,
JT 2007 (1) SC 452

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan. J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
seeking following reliefs:-

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned
advertisement
dated
22.12.2007 issued by U.P. Public
Service
Commission,
Allahabad
(Annexure-5 to the public interest
petition);
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the
resolutions
dated
30.04.2005,
27.08.2005 and 28.8.2005 passed in
Full Court Meeting of this Hon'ble
Court (Annexure Nos. 13, 14 and 15
of this public interest petition).
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents· to provide reservation
quota for physically handicapped
persons in all services including
judicial services.

2. In fact the challenge in this
petition is to the advertisement dated
22.12.2007 issued by the U.P. Public
Service Commission to appoint Assistant
Prosecution Officers and petitioners are
seeking direction that the impugned
advertisement be quashed and a fresh
advertisement
be
issued
providing
reservation in favour of the handicapped
persons. The question does arise as under
what circumstances, the petitioners claim
to
be
aggrieved
by
the
aforesaid
advertisement or by what means they are
interested in the present recruitment of
Assistant Prosecution Officers.

3. So far as the locus of the
petitioners is concerned, it has been stated
as under:-

"That this is the first public interest
petition on behalf of the petitioner which
is a registered society which works for the
welfare and benefit of persons who have
no means to approach this Hon'ble Court
for redressal of their grievance and for the
relief sought for in this public interest
petition and no other public interest
petition or appeal for the relief sought for
2 All] New Sun Education Society and another V. State of U.P. and others
403
in this public interest petition is pending
before any court of law."

No other detail has been furnished
except the aforesaid. It is not the case of
the petitioners that either the Society or
the petitioner no.2, in person, has done
anything till today to advance the cause of
handicapped persons or they are running
any institution to impart any kind of
education to such handicapped persons.
Merely a bald statement has been made
that the petitioners work for the welfare of
the petitioners who cannot seek the
redressal of their grievances before the
Court. We fail to understand as under
what circumstances, such a noble cause
has been taken by them unless they have
indulged
in
any
service
to
such
handicapped persons. We are very much
doubtful regarding the bona fides of the
petitioners and the petition is merely a
'benami' litigation and amounts to abuse
of process of the Court. More so, PIL is
not maintainable in service matters.

4. It is settled law that a, person who
suffers from legal injury only can
challenge the act/action/order etc. Writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution is maintainable for enforcing
the statutory or legal right or when there
is a complaint by the petitioner that there
is a breach of the statutory duty on the
part of the respondents. Therefore, there
must be judicially enforceable right for
the enforcement on which the writ
jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court
can enforce the performance of a statutory
duty by public bodies through its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person,
provided such person satisfies the Court
that he has a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of the said
right is the condition precedent to invoke
the writ jurisdiction. (Vide Calcutta Gas
Company (Proprietor Ltd.) Vs. State of
West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044;
Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276; State of
Kerala Vs. Smt A. Lakshmikutty & Ors.,
AIR 1987 SC 331; State of Kerala & Ors.
Vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai & Ors., AIR
1989 SC 49; Rajendra Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736;
Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank
Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors., AIR
1998 SC 3104; & Utkal University Vs.
Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & Ors.,
AIR 1999 SC 943).

5. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs.
Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR
1976 SC 578, the Apex Court has held
that only a person who is aggrieved by an
order, can maintain a writ petition. The
expression "aggrieved person" has been
explained by the Apex Court observing
that such a person must show that he has
more particular or peculiar interest on his
own beyond that of general public in
seeing
that
the
law
is
properly
administered.

6.

In
M.S.
Jayaraj
Vs.
Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors.,
(2000) 7 SCC 552, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the matter at length and
placed reliance upon a large number of its
earlier judgments including the Chairman,
Railway Board Vs. Chandrimadas, (2000)
7 SCC 465; and held that the Court must
examine the issue of locus standi from all
angles and the petitioner should be asked
to disclose as what is the legal injury
suffered by him.

7. In Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special
Tribunal & Ors., (2002)1 SCC 33, the
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Hon'ble. Supreme Court considered the
similar issue and observed as under:-

"There is no dispute regarding the
legal proposition that the rights under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
can be enforced only by an aggrieved
person except in the case where the writ
prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo
warranto. Another exception in the
general rule is the filing of a writ petition
in public interest. The existence of the
legal right of the petitioner which is
alleged to have been violated is the
foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of
the High Court under the aforesaid article.
The orthodox rule of interpretation
regarding the locus standi of a person
to reach the court has undergone a sea
change
with
the
development
of
constitutional law in our country and the
constitutional courts have been adopting a
liberal approach in dealing with the cases
or dislodging the claim of a litigant
merely on hyper-technical grounds.--------
--In other words, if the person is found to
be not merely a stranger having no right
whatsoever to any post or property, he
cannot be non-suited on the ground of his
not having the locus standi."

8. The party has to satisfy as what is
the legal injury caused by that violation of
law for the redressal of which the party
has approached the Court.

9. However, need was felt to relax
the rule of locus standi wherever person
aggrieved could not have the resources to
approach the Court. The Hon'ble Apex
Court entertained the petition even of
unregistered Association espousing the
cause of over down-trodden or its
members observing that the cause of
"little Indians" can be espoused by any
person having no interest in the matter.
However, the said person should be bona
fide, not a intermeddler or busy-body.
(Vide Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union
of India & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 802).

10. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit
Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union
of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 298, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing
with the issue of locus standi observed as
under:-

"Our
current
processual
jurisprudence is not an individualistic
Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad based and
people-oriented, and envisions access to
justice through 'class actions', 'Public
Interest Litigation', and representative
proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in
larger 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."

11.

In
Fertilizer
Corporation
Kamagar Union (Regd.), Sindri & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC
344, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:-

"Public Interest Litigation is part of
the process of participate justice and
'standing' in civil litigation of that pattern
must have liberal reception at the judicial
doorsteps."

12. Public Interest Litigation is not
in the nature of adversary litigation. The
2 All] New Sun Education Society and another V. State of U.P. and others
405
purpose of PIL is to promote the public
interest which mandates that violation of
legal or constitutional rights of a large
number of persons, poor, down-trodden,
ignorant,
socially
or
economically
disadvantaged
should
not
go
unredressed. The Court can take cognizance
in PIL when there are complaints which
shocks the judicial conscience. PIL is pro
bono publico and should not smack of any
ulterior motive and no person has a right
to achieve any ulterior purpose through
such litigations.

13. In S.P. Gupta & Ors. Vs.
President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC
149, the Hon'ble Apex Court has warned
by saying that the Court must be careful
that the members of the public who
approach the court are acting bona fide
and not in personal garb of private profit
or political motivation or other oblique
considerations. "The Court must not allow
its process to be abused". Similar view
has been taken in Kazi Lhendup Dorji Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.,
1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 116.

14. In Veena Sethi Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 339, the
Apex Court has observed that the role of
law requires to be played for the poor and
ignorant who constitute a large bulk of
humanity in this country and the Court
must uphold the basic human rights of
weaker sections of the society.

15. In the case of State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of
Medical College, AIR 1985 SC 910, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held asunder:

"Where the Court finds, on being
moved by an aggrieved party or by any
public spirited individual or social
action group, that the executive is remiss
in discharging its obligation under the
Constitution or the law, so that the poor
and the under-privileged continued to be
subjected to exploitation and injustice or
are deprived of their social and economic
entitlements or that social and economic
entitlements or that social legislation
enacted for their benefit is not being
implemented thus depriving of their rights
and benefits conferred upon them, the
Courts certainly can be must intervene
and compel the executive to carry out its
constitutional and legal obligations and
ensure that the deprived and vulnerable
sections of the community are no longer
subjected to exploitation or injustice and
they are able to realise their social and
economical rights."

16. In Sachidanand Pandey (Supra),
the Apex Court observed that the Court
should not take cognizance in such
matters merely because of its attractive
name. The petitioner must inspire the
confidence of the Court and must be
above suspicion.

17. In Ram Saran Ayotan Parasi Vs.
Union of India, JT (1988) 4 SC 557, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
P.I.L. is for making basic human rights
meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable
sections of the community and to assure
them social, economic and political
justice.

18. In Giani Devender Singh Sant
Sepoy Sikh Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
AIR 1995 SC 1847, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the High Court, while
entertaining a PIL must indicate how the
public interest was involved in the case.
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
19. In R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 1993 SC 1769, the Apex
Court observed that it was for the
aggrieved person to assail the illegality of
the offending action and no third party
has a locus standi to canvass the legality
or correctness of the action. Similarly, in
Mohmmed Anis Vs. Union of India &
Ors., 1994 (Supp) 1 SCC 145, the Apex
Court has held that a case should not be
entertained unless the petitioner points out
that his legal rights have been infringed.

20. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai
(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:

"If a person wants a relief in a Court
independent of a statutory remedy, he
must show that he is injured or subjected
to or threatened with a legal wrong. The
Courts can interfere only where legal
rights are involved. In fact legal wrong
requires judicially enforceable right and
'the touchstone to justifiability is injury to
a legally protected right'. A nominal or a
highly speculative adverse effect on the
interest of a person or right of a person is
sufficient to give him the 'standing to sue'.
Again, the 'adverse effect' and the
requisite for 'standing to sue' must be an
illegal effect........ .Such persons are
merely
busy
body
of
meddlesome
interloper...They masquerade as crusaders
for justice. They pretend to act in the
name of pro bono publico, though they
have no interest of the public or even of
their own to protect. They indulge in the
..........judicial process.......from improper
motives..........The High Court should do
well to reject the application of all such
busybodies at the threshold."

21. In S.P. Anand (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that,
"no person has a right to waiver of the
locus standi rule and court should permit
it only when it is satisfied that the carriage
of proceedings is in the competent hands
of a person, who is genuinely concerned
in public interest and is not moved by
other extraneous considerations, so also
the Court must be careful to ensure that
the process of the court is not sought to be
abused......"

22. P.I.L. can also be filed by any
person
challenging
the
misuse
or
improper use of any public property,
including the political party in power for
the reason that interest of individuals
cannot be placed above or preferred to a
larger public interest. But such a petition
can be entertained for the protection of
the society. (Vide J. Jayalalitha Vs. Govt.
of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 53;
L. Muthukumar & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 618; and
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
AIR
2001
SC
1544;
Guruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr.
Vs. C.K. Rajan & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC
546; 5 M & T. Consultants Secunderabad
Vs. S.Y. Nawab & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC
100).

23. In Raunaq International Ltd. Vs.
I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., AIR
1999 SC 393, the Apex Court observed as
under:-

"The
Public
Interest
Litigation
should not be merely a cloak for
attaining private ends of a third party or
of the party bringing the petition. The
Court can examine the previous record of
public
service
rendered
by
the
organization bringing the Public Interest
Litigation. Even when a Public Interest
Litigation is entertained, the court must be
2 All] New Sun Education Society and another V. State of U.P. and others
407
careful to weigh conflicting public
interests before intervening."

24. In BALCO Employees' Union
(Regd.) Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR
2002 SC 350, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the jurisdiction is being abused
by
unscrupulous
persons
for
their
personal gain. Therefore, the Court must
take care that the forum be not abused by
any person for personal gain. The Court
observed as under:-

'There is, in recent years, a feeling
which is not without any foundation that
Public Interest Litigation is now tending
to become publicity interest litigation or
private interest litigation as a tendency to
be counter productive. PIL is not a pill or
a panacea for all wrongs. It is essentially
meant to protect basic human rights of the
weak and disadvantaged and was a
procedure which was innovated where a
public spirited person files a petition in
effect on behalf of such persons who, on
account of poverty, helplessness or
economic and social disabilities could not
approach the Court for relief. There have
been in recent times, increasingly abuse
of PIL."

25. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji
Thaware Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors.,
(2005) 1 SCC 590, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court expressed its anguish on misuse of
the forum of the Court under the garb of
PIL observing as under:-

"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 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."

26. In R & M Trust Vs.
Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group
& Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 91, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court cautioned the Courts that
the Public Interest Litigation should be
entertained in rare cases where it is
satisfied that public at large stands to
suffer. The jurisdiction cannot be allowed
to be invoked for the purpose of serving
private ends and professional rivalry. The
Court observed that the Public Interest
Litigation is no doubt a very useful handle
for redressing the grievances of the people
but unfortunately lately it has been abused
by some interested persons and it has
brought a very bad name. Courts should
be very slow in entertaining petitions
involving public interest: in very rare
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
cases where the public at large stand to
suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the
purpose of coming to the rescue of the
downtrodden. This sacrosanct jurisdiction
of public interest litigation should be
invoked very sparingly and in favour of
vigilant litigant and not for the persons
who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake
of publicity or for the purpose of serving
their private ends. It has now become
common for unscrupulous people to serve
their private ends and jeopardise the rights
of innocent people so as to wreak
vengeance for their personal ends. This
has become very handy to the developers
and in matters of public contract. In order
to serve their professional rivalry they
utilise the service of the innocent people
or organisation in filing public interest
litigation. The courts are sometimes
persuaded to issue certain directions
without understanding the implications
and giving a handle in the hands of the
authorities to misuse it. Therefore, courts
should not exercise this jurisdiction
lightly but should exercise in very rare
and few cases involving public interest of
a large number of people who cannot
afford litigation and are made to suffer at
the hands of the authorities.

27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down parameters for entertaining
public interest litigations. In Seema
Dhamdhere, Secretary, M.P.S.C. Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors., (2007) 14 SCALE
500, while touching upon the issue of
Public Interest Litigations qua service
matters relying on its earlier judgment in
Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,
(2005) 5SCC 136, the Hon'ble Court has
strongly criticised the public interest
litigations
instituted
to
assail
the
justifiable executive actions.

28.

In
T.N.
Godavarman
Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
(2006) 5 SCC 28, relying upon its earlier
judgments in S.P. Gupta (supra); and The
Janata.Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors.,
AIR 1993 SC 892, after noticing that
lakhs of rupees had been spent by the
petitioner to prosecute the case, held as
under:

"It has been repeatedly held by this
Court that none has a right to approach
the court as a public interest litigant and
that court must be careful to see that the
member of the public who approaches the
court in public interest, is acting bona fide
and not for any personal gain or private
profit or political motivation or other
oblique considerations.

........While this Court has laid down
a chain of notable decision 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 of officious intervener without
any interest or concern except for
personal gain or private profit or other
oblique consideration."

29. Thus, in view of the above, the
ratio of all these judgements is that there
must be a public injury and public wrong
caused by wrongful or ultra vires acts or
omission of the state or a public authority.
It is for the enforcement of basic human
rights
of
weaker
sections
of
the
community who are poor, downtrodden,
ignorant,
illiterates
and
whose
fundamental rights and statutory rights
have been violated. In fact, it is for
2 All] New Sun Education Society and another V. State of U.P. and others
409
compelling the executive to carry out its
constitutional and legal obligations. It
must not be frivolous litigation by persons
having vested interest.

30. In M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors.,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
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
consideration
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 buy
bodies deserve to be thrown out by
rejection
at
the
threshold,
and
in
appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

31. In Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors.
Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR
1999 SC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that in service matters, PILs should
not be entertained. If the inflow of socalled PILs involving service matters
continues unabated at the instance of
strangers and allowed to be entertained,
the very object of speedy disposal of
service matters would get defeated.

32. In Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware Vs.
State of Maharastra, 2005 AIR SCW 46,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that
the High Courts must throw the PILs in
service matters merely by placing reliance
on the judgment in Duryodhan Sahu
(supra) at the threshold.

33. Similar view has been reiterated
in Neetu Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., JT
2007 (1) SC 452.

34. In the present case, petitioners
failed to disclose in the writ petition their
contribution
towards
the
cause
of
handicapped persons, either In the past or
in the present. It appears that the
petitioners are not the bona fide litigants.

35. In view of the above, it is
evident that the petitioners are not bona
fide litigants nor they can be held to be
public spirited persons who have any right
to abuse the process of the Court by filing
this kind of petition. The petition is
dismissed with the cost of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), which
shall be recovered by the District
Collector, Aligarh from the petitioners as
arrears of land revenue and shall be
deposited in the account of the Mediation
and Conciliation Centre of the High
Court, Allahabad.
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
36. A copy of this order be
transmitted
to
the
learned
District
Collector, Aligarh within a week for
compliance. Petition
dismissed
with
cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2682 of 2008

Shalini Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Neeraj Tiwari
Sri Neeraj Sharma
S.C.

U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
(Reservation for Physically Handicapped
Dependent of Freedom Fighters and ExService man Act, 1993-readwith U.P.
State Universities Act (Regulation of
Admission to courses Institution for
Degree in Education in affiliated and
constituent college order, 1987-Entrance
Examination
for
B.Ed.
educationselection challenged-as no reservation of
2%
quota
for
fighters
of
freedom
provided-G.O. 1987 provides weightage
of
15
marks-held-except
weightage
under the Act as the examination is
neither conducted by U.P. Public Service
Commission, nor the public service post
advertised.

Held: Para 10 & 11

A perusal of the Act shows that it has
been
legislated
for
the
benefit
of
handicapped
dependents
of
freedom
fighters and ex-servicemen, who apply in
Public Services. It does not apply in the
field of education wherein the other
Government Order dated 5.5.1987 is
applicable.

Since
the
petitioner
is
neither
a
handicapped person nor she is appearing
in any examination held by the Public
Service Commission. She cannot get the
benefit of Act No. 4/1993.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has graduated from
Allahabad University from arts side. An
advertisement dated 13.4.2007 for holding
Joint Entrance Examination for B.Ed.
course for session 2007-2008 by the
Registrar Chhtrapati Shahuji, Maharaj
University, Kanpur for filling up 60,000
(Sixty
Thousand)
vacancies
was
advertised. She applied under the category
of dependant of Freedom Fighter in the
aforesaid examination held on 22.7.2007
and secured rank no.45459 in female
category and rank no. 118897 in general
category.

3. The advertisement provide that
the
Rules
of
reservation
of
U.P.
Government issued in this regard to
reservation shall apply but when the result
was declared she came to know that no
horizontal reservation of 2% in her
vertical category had been determined.
Aggrieved she has come up in this
petition on the ground that reservation
aforesaid not provided for dependants of
freedom
fighter
vitiates
the
whole
proceedings
being
against
the
Government Policy and the law said to
have been laid down by the State
Government as well as the guidelines laid