National Problem Solution ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 452 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to perform their statutory duty and take disciplinary action against the authorities/officials who have caused or are responsible for wasteful expenditure of public funds to the tune of crores in the elections in Patna.

2. At the very outset we may notxe that the present petition is devoid of proper facts and substance in law. The petition is vague, refers to no facts and all that it states is that the expenses incurred are manipulated and large public funds are being misappropriated and embezzled. There is no factual matrix of the case which could even remotely support the allegations made in the writ petition. The Constitutional mandate as contained in Article 51A certainly obliges the concerned Government to conduct a free and fair election on immense expenditure. It is a settled principle of law that a writ petition must state complete facts and the averments made in the writ petition should be unambiguous. A petition full of vagueness can hardly be entertained by the High Court.

3. The writ petitioner describes himself as a citizen of India dedicated to eradicate corruption at high levels. According to him certain objections were raised in the audit report for the period ending 31.3.1998 and the CBI should be directed to look into those objections.

4. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has withheld material facts from the Court which were within his personal knowledge. During the course of hearing it was pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner had filed a similar writ petition in the High Court of Judicator at Jharkhand, Ranchi, which was dismissed and this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. It was further stated that he had also filed a somewhat similar writ petition in the High Court at Patna which was also disposed of and the complete facts in that regard have also not been recorded by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

5. The petitioner, who appears in person, at the first instance, tried to argue that the petitioner in the writ petition before the High Court at Ranchi was some other person. This is factually incorrect, as is evident from the copy of the writ petition filed in the said Court, which was produced by the respondents. In that writ petition, the petitioner, that is the National Problem Solution Suggestion Board had sued through its Chairman, Sh. Bharat Jyoti, who is none other than the present petitioner. It was not disputed that the said petition was dismissed. In the writ petition which was filed at Patna, the petitioner had vaguely referred to it. The Civil Writ No. 8159/2003 was filed by him, in which the Patna High Court observed that the petitioner could file a First Information Report, failing which a complaint before the competent Court. That case was also filed on the basis of the audit report for the period ending 31.3.1998. Thereafter the Central Bureau of Investigation had informed the petitioner that he should appear before the authorities to assist them to proceed with the matter further vide their letter dated 11.10.2004. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had at all appeared before the said authorities except after a considerable time on 28.10.2006. He has written a letter that the inquiry should be expedited.

6. The facts as they appear from the record clearly show that the petitioner is hardly a public-spirited person but is interested in filing frivolous litigation one after the other in the Courts of different jurisdiction and without disclosing all the relevant and material facts. The petitioner was unable to show to the Court as to how the Court has jurisdiction. He had also not shown the directions, if any, issued by the Patna High Court. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that he has never approached this Court earlier, but does not make a specific mention of the results of the two writ petitions filed in the High Courts at Ranchi and Patna.

7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that this writ petition does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a public interest litigation. This writ petition is an abuse of the process of law. In the present days of case loads on Courts, it is expected of every citizen of the country to exercise his rights with care and caution and not file petitions which ex facie are frivolous, without merit and are repetitive attempts before Courts of different jurisdictions to get any directions issued against the authorities de hors his own unequitable conduct.

8. For the reasons aforestated, we would dismiss this petition with costs which are assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.