Allahabad High Court
Journalist Federation Of ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 746 of 2022
Petitioner :- Journalist Federation Of Democratic Reform Thru. General Secy. Jyoti Jaiswal , Barabanki
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health , Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Jaiswal,Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Sachin Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent no.1, 3 to 7 and Shri Mukul Tewari, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
By means of this Public Interest Litigation the petitioner has come up before this Court with the following prayers:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to set up an enquiry against the R.S. Medical Centre Lucknow and take the appropriate action against guilty/ responsible persons in accordance with law and further demolish the unauthorized building by cancelling the registration of the R.S. Medical Centre, Lucknow, in the public interest of justice.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to seize campus of the R.S. Medical Centre Lucknow with immediate effect and shift the patient in other government medical hospital."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present public interest litigation and argued that though the petition is ostensibly filed in the public interest, the petitioner has not made due disclosure as required by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which was amended in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and prays for dismissal of present petition.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in compliance to the provisions of Chapter XXII Rule Sub Rule-3A, has no personal interest in the present matter and that he has come up before this Court with the aforesaid prayers and further stated that he has made a representation to the Chief Medical Officer concerned regarding his grievances which have also been raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Having considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
It would also be appropriate for this Court for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
Following the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra), Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules, 1952 was amended by including sub-rule (3A) in Rule 1, which is as follows:-
"(3A) 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 him or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State."
This amendment was brought out in compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in order to ensure that the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gurmet Singh Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2021 (5) ADJ 409, noticing the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal (supra) and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation.
So far as credential of the petitioner is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to submit before this Court regarding his own credentials and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is misuse and abuse of the process of the Court.
In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to raise his grievance before the competent Court.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 21.10.2022
Arnima
