# Rajeev Kumar and another v. The State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 348
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-12-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition/(PIL) No.71469 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeev-kumar-and-another-v-the-state-of-u-p-others-40858
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Sri V.K. Upadhyay
Sri K.C. Sinha
Sri K.R. Singh
Sri D.K. Arora
Sri K.P. Shukla
S.C.

(A) Constitution of India-Art. 226-Public
Interest Litigation Petition-nature and
scope
for
interference
under
writ
jurisdiction explained.

Held: Para 29

Thus, in view of the above, the ratio of
all these judgments 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
compelling the executive to carry out its
constitutional and legal obligations. It
must not be frivolous litigation by
persons having vested interests.

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226/227Practice & Procedure- petitioner filed
false affidavit-initially mislead the Courtto obtain favourable Order-amount to
Criminal
Contempt-Conduct
of
petitioner-highly
depreciated-Petition
dismissed with cost of Rs. One lac-apart
from proceeding for Criminal Contempt.

Held: Para 31 & 38

In view of the above, it is evident that
the petitioners did not approach the
Court with clean hands. They tried to
mislead the Court making totally false
averments and relying upon forged and
fabricated documents.

The facts stated above also amply depict
that the manner in which the petition
has been drafted exposes the petitioners
to be prosecuted for criminal Contempt.
It is a settled proposition of law that a
false statement made in the Court or in
the pleadings, intentionally to mislead
the Court and obtain a favourable order,
amounts to criminal contempt, as it
tends to impede the administration of
justice. A Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narain Das Vs.
Government of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
AIR 1974 SC 1252 has held as under.
Case law discussed:
1998 (6) SCC-2326
1998 (6) SCC-686
1996 (6) SCC-14
AIR 1995 SC-1795
AIR 1974 SC 1252
AIR 2004 SC-2421
2003 AIR Scw-14
AIR 1995 SC-1947
1999 (1) SCC-271
AIR 1997 SC 1236
AIR 1996 SC-2687
1995 (1) SCC-242
1994 (6) SCC-620
AIR 1993 SC-852
2005 (3) SCC-91
2005 (1) SCC-590
2003 (8) SCC-100
2003 (7) SCC-546
2000 (7) SCC-718
1999 (1) SCC-53
1994 (1) SCC-145
AIR 1995 SC-1847
J.T. 1988 (4) SC-557
AIR 1985 SC-910
AIR 1983 SC-339
AIR 1982 SC-149
AIR 1981 SC-344
AIR 1981 SC-298
AIR 1984 SC-802
2000 (7) SCC-465
2000 (7) SCC-552
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
AIR 1976 SC-578
AIR 1999 SC-9

## Text

_Characters 0–39,789 of 45,017. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39789 for what follows._

348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
both category of candidates in this respect
as it would be maintaining balance
between the demands of merit and social
justice. Once a particular point for a
particular section under the roster has
been declared, then the post at the said
point would be offered to candidate from
the said category and to no one else.
Roster would operate, only till all the
roster points in cadre are filled and quota
prescribed in instruction are achieved.
The same would be in the form of running
account,
from
year
to
year,
and
subsequent vacancies are to be filled from
the categories to which the post belonged.
The operations of roster, for filling cadre
strength by itself ensures that reservations
remains, within 50% limit so that balance
is not disturbed and right of General
Category candidates is not defeated. Right
of
consideration of candidature for
promotion
has
been
held
to
be
fundamental right, but said right will
come into play, when incumbent falls
within the zone of consideration. Once
post in question is reserved by providing
fix point, then general category candidate
is
excluded
from
the
zone
of
consideration. This is the rigor of roster
point. Thus, post meant for SC/ST
candidate, shown in roster has to be
offered to SC/ST candidate and as
mentioned in R.K. Sabarwals (supra)
case, roster cannot be changed or altered
and said point post has to be filled up only
from
the
said
category
and
State
Government can only forward the said
point and here State Government has
taken decision, that in the event of non
availability of reserve category candidate,
in the matter of promotion, the said post
would be shifted to direct recruitment
quota and in future, if candidates are
available in feeder cadre, then necessary
adjustment would be made .

Now taking the case in hand it is
reflected
that
Deputy
Director
of
Education in the present case at no point
of time has adverted to all these aspects of
the matter that there was existing
Government Order which covered the
field of reservation in the matter of
promotion and there was an exiting roster.
In the present case as Deputy Director of
Eduction has not undertaken any exercise
while directing promotion of Rama Kant
Mishra whereas Deputy Director of
Education was enjoined upon to see as to
whether post in question was reserved for
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes or not.
As no exercise whatsoever has been done
in the present case as such entire
proceedings undertaken by the Deputy
Director of Education is clearly vitiated
and is unsustainable.

25. Consequently, writ petition filed
by Management is allowed and two writ
petitions filed by Ramakant Mishra are
dismissed. Joint Director of Education,
Allahabad is directed to decide the matter
afresh, after providing opportunity to
Management as well as Sri Rama Kant
Mishra.

No orders as to cost. Petition
Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition/(PIL) No.71469 of
2005

Rajeev Kumar and another ...Petitioners
1 All] Rama Kant Misra V. C/M, Badri Nath Intermediate College and others
349
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha
Sri Rajesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Upadhyay
Sri K.C. Sinha
Sri K.R. Singh
Sri D.K. Arora
Sri K.P. Shukla
S.C.

(A) Constitution of India-Art. 226-Public
Interest Litigation Petition-nature and
scope
for
interference
under
writ
jurisdiction explained.

Held: Para 29

Thus, in view of the above, the ratio of
all these judgments 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
compelling the executive to carry out its
constitutional and legal obligations. It
must not be frivolous litigation by
persons having vested interests.

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226/227Practice & Procedure- petitioner filed
false affidavit-initially mislead the Courtto obtain favourable Order-amount to
Criminal
Contempt-Conduct
of
petitioner-highly
depreciated-Petition
dismissed with cost of Rs. One lac-apart
from proceeding for Criminal Contempt.

Held: Para 31 & 38

In view of the above, it is evident that
the petitioners did not approach the
Court with clean hands. They tried to
mislead the Court making totally false
averments and relying upon forged and
fabricated documents.

The facts stated above also amply depict
that the manner in which the petition
has been drafted exposes the petitioners
to be prosecuted for criminal Contempt.
It is a settled proposition of law that a
false statement made in the Court or in
the pleadings, intentionally to mislead
the Court and obtain a favourable order,
amounts to criminal contempt, as it
tends to impede the administration of
justice. A Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narain Das Vs.
Government of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
AIR 1974 SC 1252 has held as under.
Case law discussed:
1998 (6) SCC-2326
1998 (6) SCC-686
1996 (6) SCC-14
AIR 1995 SC-1795
AIR 1974 SC 1252
AIR 2004 SC-2421
2003 AIR Scw-14
AIR 1995 SC-1947
1999 (1) SCC-271
AIR 1997 SC 1236
AIR 1996 SC-2687
1995 (1) SCC-242
1994 (6) SCC-620
AIR 1993 SC-852
2005 (3) SCC-91
2005 (1) SCC-590
2003 (8) SCC-100
2003 (7) SCC-546
2000 (7) SCC-718
1999 (1) SCC-53
1994 (1) SCC-145
AIR 1995 SC-1847
J.T. 1988 (4) SC-557
AIR 1985 SC-910
AIR 1983 SC-339
AIR 1982 SC-149
AIR 1981 SC-344
AIR 1981 SC-298
AIR 1984 SC-802
2000 (7) SCC-465
2000 (7) SCC-552
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
AIR 1976 SC-578
AIR 1999 SC-943
AIR 1988 SC-3104
AIR 1989 SC-49
AIR 1996 SC-2737
1996 (6) SCC-734

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

1. The present petition has been filed
as Public Interest Litigation by the
petitioners claiming the following reliefs:-
"1. A writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents/Bajaj Groups not to install
and run their Mill in village Nekofal @
Bilai, Pargana Dara Nagar, Tehsil Sadar,
District Bijnor.

2. A writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to comply with all
environmental needs as required
under law before installing Mills.

3. A writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents/Bajaj Groups to
immediate comply with agreement
said to be executed by D.G.M.
(Cane) namely Surya Prakash Ojha
dated 15.04.2005 (Annex.2).

2. The aforesaid reliefs have been
claimed by the petitioners submitting that
they
are
public
spirited
persons
representing the interest of the poor,
downtrodden villagers who have been
cheated by the respondent nos. 6 to 8 in
purchasing their land in contravention of
the statutory provisions of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the ''Act,
1950').
They
further
prayed
for
enforcement of the agreement executed
by said respondent nos. 6 to 8 providing
that they would provide employment to
the dependents of the farmers who have
sold their land to them; there would be a
pipeline upto five kilometres and the said
respondents would supply free light over
the roads and water to the villagers; the
Mill has been established without getting
No Objection Certificate from the U.P.
Pollution
Control
Board
which
is
mandatorily required; the drainage is not
being made as promised rather the
permission has been sought to establish
the said drainage on 11.08.2005 from the
officials which is nothing but a conspiracy
between the statutory authorities and the
Bajaj Groups which is creating a lot of
problems to the villagers as it will always
create a very foul smell vis-Ã-vis it will
generate several diseases like Malaria,
Filaria and it would be dangerous for
adjacent agricultural land as chemical
going through water will also damage
agricultural land adjacent to the said
drainage; the environmental pollution
would adversely affect the health of the
villagers and would cause environmental
hazards to the land, plant and agriculture
lying over the land; the land had been
purchased from the farmers without
seeking permission from the Competent
Authority to convert the agricultural land
into non-agricultural land, in violation of
the Legislative mandate to protect the
farmers to be misutilised by the persons
who are land grabbers or Mill owners; by
running of the Mill, the health and the
properties of large number of people
would have an adverse affect and the
future generation would also be adversely
affected; the sale deeds obtained by the
said respondent nos. 6 to 8 are void as no
permission from the Competent Authority
under Section 143 of the Act has been
taken. Thus, the Mill is being established
by illegal method for grabbing the public
1 All] Rajeev Kumar and another V. The State of U.P. and others
351
properties
without
taking
prior
permission.

3. Shri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel
for the petitioners vehemently pressed the
aforesaid submissions and asked for the
reliefs sought in this petition.

4. On the other hand, when the
matter was heard on the first date, i.e.
21.11.2005, Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned
counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6, 7
and 8, filed a compilation containing 23
documents running into 81 pages which
contained the permission of the Statutory
Authority regarding purchase of land; No
Objection Certificate under the provisions
of Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called
the ''Act 1974'); No Objection Certificate
 from the U.P. Pollution Control Board
dated
15.07.2004;
Permission
under
Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and
Control
of
Pollution)
Act,
1981
(hereinafter called the Act, 1981) dated
21.10.2005; permission under Section
21/22 of the Act, 1981; permission under
Section 25/26 of the Act, 1974 dated 2110-2005;
Test
Certificate
dated
09.11.2005 regarding effluent water;
report regarding construction of main
drain from factory to Vaan river, and
submitted that the petition has been filed
to
achieve
an
ulterior
purpose
as
petitioner no.1 had been awarded contract
for construction of the said drainage
against which main grievance has been
raised by him. Since he did not complete
the work in time, his contract was
cancelled. The agreement purported to
have
been
executed
on
behalf
of
respondent nos. 6 to 8 filed as Annexure 2
to the writ petition is a forged document
as there is no such person in the
employment of the said respondent nos. 6
to 8 nor any agreement has ever been
signed
by
any
other
person.
The
petitioners did not disclose the material
fact that they were themselves responsible
for delaying the drainage from sugar Mill
to river and a blackmailing tactics is being
adopted inspite of the fact that the
construction of the Mill has been
established strictly in accordance with law
and it started the sugar production with
effect from 03.11.2005 and this petition
has been filed on 17.11.2005 on the facts
which are totally false.

5. The copy of the compilation filed
by Shri V.K, Upadhyay was served upon
Shri R.K. Ojha and he was asked to take
instructions and file an affidavit in this
regard. As the compilation was not
supported by any affidavit, Shri V.K.
Upadhyay was also asked to file an
affidavit in support of the same which
was filed. A counter affidavit has also
been filed by Shri V.K. Upadhyay
pointing out that petitioner no.1 is
inimical to the said respondents as his
contract for construction of drainage,
which according to the petitioners would
be a cause of pollution was delayed by
him without any reason, has been
cancelled vide order dated 30.06.2005.
The copies awarding contract vide letter
dated 20.05.2005 and the cancellation
order dated 11.07.2005 have been filed
along with the affidavit. It has further
been submitted in paragraph 7 of the
affidavit that the Annexure 2 is a forged
document as it is purported to have been
signed by Shri Satya Prakash Ojha and
there was no such person in the name of
Satya Prakash Ojha in the employment of
the said respondents and there has been
no agreement with any person whose land
was acquired.
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
6. An affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the U.P. Pollution Control Board
annexing the copies of the No Objection
Certificate issued from time to time and it
has been submitted that the No Object
Certificate was valid upto 31.12.2005 and
the
photo
copies
of
the
said
Permissions/No
Objection
Certificates
have been filed.

7. The petitioners were directed to
explain their conduct as how the petition
had been filed suppressing the facts and
on
false
premises.
They
filed
a
supplementary affidavit on 29.11.2005
without disclosing any reason as under
what circumstances this writ petition has
been filed without disclosing the factum
that petitioner no.1 was given the contract
for construction of the said drainage
which, according to him would cause
serious pollution problem in the area. He
has not disputed that he has been given
the contract. He has produced certain bills
having certain disputes regarding payment
of bills. He has not explained as under
what circumstances he has taken the
factual averments regarding not taking the
permission for purchasing the land from
statutory authorities and for its conversion
from agricultural to non-agricultural use
and under what circumstances it has been
stated that the Permission/No Objection
Certificate has not been obtained from the
Pollution Control Board. First time in this
affidavit, it has been submitted that
 petitioner no.1 is having a Mango grove
in a land measuring .019 hectares and the
said garden will be spoiled, but the facts
remain admitted that the petitioners are
not bonafide persons nor they have filed
this petition in public interest. The Court
not being satisfied from the affidavit filed
by
the
petitioners
on
29.11.2005
adjourned the case further. On 30.11.2005
it was again adjourned for 02.12.2005 and
on that date a specific direction was given
to the petitioners to explain their conduct
and file a proper affidavit as under what
circumstances they could muster the
courage to abuse the process of the Court
and why did they not disclose the true
facts. In response to the said order, no
reply has been filed. Today, Mr. R.K.
Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners
are not in a position to submit any reply
or explain their conduct as under what
circumstances the petition has been filed.
Shri Ojha prayed that he should be
permitted to withdraw the writ petition as
the petitioners are not interested to
prosecute the case further. However, in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.P. Anand Vs. S.D.
Deve Gowda & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 734,
as the Public Interest Litigation cannot be
permitted to be withdrawn as Court's
cannot be permitted to be a forum to be
used to achieve an ulterior purpose, we
rejected the oral prayed made by Shri
Ojha.

8. 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
1 All] Rajeev Kumar and another V. The State of U.P. and others
353
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).

9. 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.

10.

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.

11. In Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special
Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33, the
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 hypertechnical 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 nonsuited on the ground of his not having the
locus standi."

12. 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.

13. 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
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
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).

14. 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."

15.

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."

16. Public Interest Litigation is not
in the nature of adversary litigation. The
purpose of P.I.L. 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 P.I.L. when there are complaints which
shocks the judicial conscience. P.I.L. 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.

17. 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.

18. In Veena Sethi Vs. State of
Bihar 7 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.

19. 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 as under:
1 All] Rajeev Kumar and another V. The State of U.P. and others
355
"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."

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 P.I.L must indicate how the
public interest was involved in the case.

23. 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.

24. 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 wehre legal
rights are involved. In fact legal wrong
requires judicially enforceable right and
''the touchstone to justiciability 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
middlesome
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."
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
25. 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......"
26. 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).

27. 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
careful
to
weigh
conflicting
public
interests before intervening."

28. 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."

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
1 All] Rajeev Kumar and another V. The State of U.P. and others
357
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."
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 very slow in entertaining petitions
involving public interest: in very rare
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.

29. Thus, in view of the above, the
ratio of all these judgments 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, down-trodden,
ignorant,
illiterates
and
whose
fundamental rights and statutory rights
have been violated. In fact, it is for
compelling the executive to carry out its
constitutional and legal obligations. It
must not be frivolous litigation by persons
having vested interests.

30. The factual matrix of this case if
examined properly, reveals the following
facts:-

1. The petition is based on false factual
averments.
2. Material facts have been suppressed
in order to obtain the favourable
order from this Court.
3. Petition
for
restraining
the
respondent nos. 6 to 8 to establish the
Sugar Mill has been filed after it
started production of sugar on
commercial level.
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
4. It has falsely been stated in the
petition that land had been purchased
for the sugar mills in contravention
of the provisions of the Act, 1960 as
the said respondents had taken
permission
from
the
Competent
Authority.
5. It has falsely been pleaded that the
respondent nos. 6 to 8 are running
the
Mills
without
prior
permission/No Objection Certificate
from the U.P. Pollution Control
Board.
6. Petitioner no.1 had been awarded the
contract to construct the drainage and
he
could
not
complete
the
construction in time, his contract was
cancelled
vide
order
dated
30.06.2005.
7. Petitioners filed a forged document
(Annex.2) to show that there was
some agreement on behalf of the
respondent nos. 6 to 8 and the
farmers, whose land had been
purchased, on the other side. The
said
document
does
not
bear
signature of any person on behalf of
the said respondents. Nor there could
be any valid agreement unilaterally.
8. Petitioners prayed for enforcement of
the
unenforceable
agreement
purported to have been executed on
behalf of the said respondents.

31. In view of the above, it is
evident that the petitioners did not
approach the Court with clean hands.
They tried to mislead the Court making
totally false averments and relying upon
forged and fabricated documents.

32. When a person approaches a
Court of Equity in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226/227 of the Constitution, he should
approach the Court not only with clean
hands but also with clean mind, clean
heart and clean objective. (Vide The
Ramjas Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852; K.R.
Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand & Ors.,
(1994) 6 SCC 620). Thus, who seeks
equity must do equity. The legal maxim
"Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum
Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri
Locupletiorem", means that it is a law of
nature that one should not be enriched by
the loss or injury to another.

33. Similarly, judicial process
should not become an instrument of
oppression or abuse of a means in the
process of the Court to subvert justice for
the reason that the interest of justice and
public interest coalesce. The Courts have
to weigh the public interest vis-Ã-vis
private interest while exercising their
discretionary powers. Easy access to
justice should not be misused as a licence
to
file
misconceived
and
frivolous
petitions. (Vide Nooruddin Vs. Dr. K.L.
Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242; Dr. Buddhi
Kota Subbarao Vs. K. Parasaran & Ors.,
AIR 1996 SC 2687; and Ramniklal N.
Bhutta & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1236).

34. In Tilokchand Motichand Vs.
H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898; State of
Haryana Vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
AIR 1977 SC 781; and Sabia Khan &
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 1
SCC 271, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that filing totally misconceived petition
amounts to abuse of the process of the
Court and such litigant is not required to
be
dealt
with
lightly,
as
petition
containing misleading and inaccurate
statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior
1 All] Rajeev Kumar and another V. The State of U.P. and others
359
purpose amounts to abuse of the process
of the Court.

35. In Agriculture & Processed Food
Products Vs. Oswal Agro Furane, AIR
1996 SC 1947, the Apex Court had taken
a serious objection in a case filed by
suppressing the material facts and held
that if a petitioner is guilty of suppression
of very important fact and his case cannot
be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is
bound to make "full and true disclosure of
facts". While deciding the said case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed
reliance upon the judgment in King Vs.
General Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486,
wherein it has been observed as under:-

"Where an ex parte application has
been made to this Court for a rule nisi or
other process, if the Court comes to the
conclusion that the affidavit in support of
the application was not candid and did not
fairly state the facts, but stated them in
such a way as to mislead the Court as to
the true facts, the Court ought, for its own
protection and to prevent abuse of its
process, to refuse to proceed any further
with the examination of its merits......."

36. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony
Bai & Anr., 2003 AIR SCW 14; and
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2421,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
whenever the Court comes to the
conclusion that the process of the Court is
being abused, the Court would be justified
in refusing to proceed further and refuse
relief to the party. This rule has been
evolved out of need of the Courts to deter
a litigant from abusing the process of the
Court by deceiving it. However, the
suppressed fact must be material one in
the sense that had it not been suppressed,
it would have led any fact on the on the
merit of the case.

37. Legal maxim "Juri Ex Injuria
Non Oritur" means that a right cannot
arise out of wrong doing, and it becomes
applicable in case like this.

38. The facts stated above also
amply depict that the manner in which the
petition has been drafted exposes the
petitioners to be prosecuted for criminal
Contempt. It is a settled proposition of
law that a false statement made in the
Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to
mislead the Court and obtain a favourable
order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it
tends to impede the administration of
justice. A Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narain Das Vs.
Government of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
AIR 1974 SC 1252 has held as under:-

"Now there can be no doubt that if a
wrong
or
misleading
statement
is
deliberately and wilfully made by a party
to a litigation with a view to obtain a
favourable order, it would prejudice or
interfere with the due course of the
judicial proceeding, and thus, amount to
contempt of court."

39. In The Advocate General, State
of Bihar Vs. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair
Industries & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 946, the
Apex Court held that every abuse of the
process of the Court does not necessarily
amount to contempt of Court, but a
calculated attempt to hamper the due
course of the judicial proceeding or
administration of justice shall definitely
amount to contempt of the Court, and in
such a case, punishment to the contemnor
is necessary to prevent the abuse and
making a mockery of the judicial process,
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
as it adversely affects the interest of the
public in the administration of justice.
The Court further held as under.

"The public have an interest, an
abiding and a real interest, and a vital
stake in the effective and orderly
administration of justice, because, unless
justice is so administered, there is the
peril of all rights and liberties perishing.
The Court has the duty of protecting the
interest of the public in the due
administration of justice, and so, it is
entrusted with the power to commit for
contempt of Court, not in order to protect
the dignity of the Court against insult or
injury as the expression 'contempt of
Court' may seem to suggest, but, to
protect and to vindicate the right of the
public that the administration of justice
shall
not
be
prevented,
prejudiced,
obstructed or interfered with."

40. In The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar
Association Vs.