[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Save India Foundation (Regd.) vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors on 23 February, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:- 18.02.2026
Date of Decision:- 23 .02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2278/2026 & CM APPLs. 11030-31/2026
SAVE INDIA FOUNDATION (REGD.) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Chandra Sharma and Mr.
Vikas Sharma, Mr. Yogesh Aggarwal,
Mr. Neeraj Chauhan, Mr. Mohit
Kumar, Ms. Khushbu Khatri, Mr.
Lalit Goyal, Ms. Preeti Singh and Mr.
Subhash Pal, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, S.C. with Mr.
Ahmed Jamal Siddiqui, Mr. K. K.
Rai, Mr. Madhav Tripathi, Advs. for
MCD.
Mr. Sayed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with
Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, GP for UOI
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, S.C. with
Mr.Kuljeet Singh, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. with
Ms.Farahat Jahan Rehmani, ASC,
Mr.Firoz I. Khan, Mr. I. Ahmed,
Mr.R. Mandal, Ms. M. Ali,
Ms.Nazma, Advs. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
1. The petitioner, which is a Trust registered under the Indian Trusts
Act, 1882, has invoked our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, by instituting this petition purportedly in public interest through its
Authorised person/Trustee - Sh. Preet Singh, whereby a notification dated
24.03.1980 issued by the Delhi Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the
"Wakf Board"), which was published in the official Gazette of Delhi on
10.04.1980, has been challenged.
2. By the said notification issued under Section 5(2) of the Muslim
Wakfs Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1954"), certain wakf
properties existing in the then Union Territory of Delhi have been published.
The challenge to the said list has been made to the Sunni wakf properties
enlisted at Serial No. 26, 27 and 29, namely, (i) Mosque locally known as
Jama Masjid, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, (ii) Mosque, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, locally
known as Moti Masjid and (iii) Masjid Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
3. A perusal of the impugned notification reveals that it was published
by the Wakf Board after examining the report forwarded to the Wakf Board
by the Delhi Administration under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1954.
4. At the outset, learned counsel representing the Wakf Board has
opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition by stating that
challenge to a notification issued in the year 1980 after a lapse of about 46
years would not be permissible and further that the list of the wakf
properties was published strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, 1954 after following due process as per the provisions contained in
Section 4 and 5 of the Act, 1954 and therefore, the petition is misconceived.
5. Making submissions on behalf of the Wakf Board, learned counsel
has drawn our attention to Section 4 of the Act, 1954 which provides for
appointment of a Commissioner of Wakfs for the State, who under sub-
section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, 1954 was mandated to conduct an inquiry
and thereafter submit his report to the State Government containing certain
particulars, namely, (i) the number of wakfs in the State, (ii) nature and
object of each wakf, (iii) gross income of property comprised in each wakf,
(iv) the amount of land revenue, cess rates and taxes payable in respect of
such property, and (v) the expenses incurred in realisation of the income and
pay or other remuneration of the Mutawalli and such other particulars
relating to each wakfs as may be prescribed.
6. It has further been argued that under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of
the Act, 1954 on receipt of a report under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the
Act, 1954, the State Government was required to forward a copy of the same
to the Wakf Board, which under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act,
1954 was required to examine the report and publish it in the official
gazette. A list of wakfs existing in the State containing such particulars as
may be prescribed. It has, thus, been stated and argued on behalf of the
Wakf Board that the list contained in the impugned notification was, thus,
published by the Wakf Board after an inquiry conducted by the
Commissioner of Wakfs and on a report based on such inquiry tendered by
the State Government to the Wakf Board. It has also been argued on behalf
of the Wakf Board that making a challenge to the impugned notification
after such a long period is tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court.
7. Further submission on behalf of the Wakf Board is that in case of any
dispute regarding the Wakfs enlisted under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of
the Act, 1954, Section 6 of the said Act provides a complete mechanism for
the resolution of the same. It has been stated that Section 6 of the Act, 1954,
clearly provided that if any question arose whether a particular property is a
wakf or not, any person interested in such property could institute a suit in
the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the decision on the question,
and the decision of the Civil Court in respect of such matter would be final.
8. Our attention has also been drawn to the proviso appended to Section
6(1) of the Act, 1954, according to which, no such suit would be entertained
by the Civil Court after expiry of one year from the date of publication of
the list of wakfs under Section 5(2) of the Act, 1954. It is, thus, the
submission on behalf of the Wakf Board that the impugned notification
which enlists the wakf properties cannot be permitted to be challenged at
this stage after expiry of period of 46 years, as the such list would become
final if no suit as envisaged in Section 6(1) of the Act, 1954, was instituted
and if any such suit was instituted that resulted in its dismissal.
9. Learned counsel representing the Wakf Board has questioned the very
bonafide of instituting these proceedings as a public interest litigation
petition. It has been stated that even earlier the petitioner had instituted a
public interest litigation petition, namely W.P. (C) 1939/2026, which was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to institute the appropriate proceedings
before the appropriate forum which may include, filing of this writ petition,
however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this petition is
not maintainable for the reasons as asserted on behalf of the Wakf Board.
10. In reply to the objections regarding the maintainability of the writ
petition raised on behalf of the Wakf Board, learned counsel for the
petitioner has argued that the petitioner - organisation was not aware that
the properties enlisted at Serial No. 26, 27 and 29 in the impugned
notification were Wakf properties, which came to the knowledge of the
petitioner only recently and therefore, delay in espousing a case in public
interest is not material.
11. The case set up by the petitioner, as disclosed in the writ petition, is
that the land comprised in the subject properties enlisted in the impugned
notification was acquired by the Delhi Government under the relevant
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 26.03.1977 and possession
thereof was also taken. It has also been stated that in respect of the said
land, compensation was also paid to the land owners vide Award No. 33/78-
79 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (North), Delhi.
12. Submission further on behalf of the petitioner is that as per the Award
declared in respect of the subject land and other surrounding parcels of land,
the acquisition was made for planned development of Delhi and accordingly,
the land was handed over to the Delhi Development Authority, which
integrated these parcels of land into a formal layout plan for a planned
colony which was named as Jahangir Puri.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the properties
enlisted at Serial No. 26, 27 and 29 of the impugned notification in fact, are
situated on land which forms part of the land acquired in respect of which
Award No. 33/78-79 was declared by the Land Acquisition Collector and
compensation in lieu of the acquisition was also paid to the land owners,
however, the said properties have been declared to be wakf properties by
way of issuing the gazette dated 10.04.1980 in violation of law and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions regarding "character" of acquired land.
14. However, we may note that neither reference to any specific judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been given by the petitioner in this
petition, nor has it been stated as to which law has been violated. It has,
thus, been submitted that once the land over which the properties as
aforesaid exist, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the
properties could not have been enlisted as wakf properties and as a matter of
fact any construction which comprised in the said properties enlisted at
Serial No. 26, 27 and 29 of the impugned notification is nothing but illegal
encroachment on public land and therefore, the notification is liable to be
quashed.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone
through the records available before us on this petition and also considering
the facts and circumstances in which proceedings of this petition have been
instituted, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has
unnecessarily attempted to rake up the past. The motive behind filing the
writ petition also does not appear to be bonafide. We are also of the opinion
that any notification made about 46 years ago cannot be permitted to be
challenged on flimsy grounds. We are further constrained to observe that
there is nothing on record which establishes the identity of the land over
which the wakf properties in question which are enlisted at Serial No. 26, 27
and 29 of the impugned notification exist; neither is there any evidence nor
any proof even for the name sake which establishes that the parcel of land
acquired in respect of which Award No. 33/78-79 was declared under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the land over which the properties enlisted at
Serial No. 26, 27 and 29 of the impugned notification stand.
16. Petitioner appears to be habitual of filing the petitions describing them
as public interest litigation petitions, details of which can be found in
paragraph 7 of the writ petition, which is extracted herein below:-
S.NO Case no. Title Listing date
1. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Next date:28-05-
15737/2024 (Regd.) 2025
Vs. Delhi Development Last date:
Authority 27/03/2025
2. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation LAST
17655/2024 Vs Chairman Railway DATE
(disposed off) Board :08/01/202
3. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last date:
17523/2024 Vs Department Of 17/02/2025
[disposed off] Forest And Wildlife &
Ors.
4. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Next
2162/2025 Vs National Highway date:20/09/2025
[PENDING ] Authority Of India & last date:
Anr. 30/04/2025
Advocate : Umesh
Chandra Sharma
5. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last date: 07-03-
2743 / 2025 Vs Chairman Railway 2025
[disposed off] Board
6. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last date-19-03-
3353/ 2025 Delhi Wakf Board Next date-21-05-
[pending]
7. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last date-19-03-
3384 / 2025 Lg Of Delhi Next date-23-04-
[pending]
8. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last date-02- 04-
Lg Of Delhi
9. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last date:
4536/2025 Vs 09/04/2025
[disposed off] Department Of Forest
and
Wildlife & Ors
10. W.P.(c) Save India Last date:
5142/2025 Foundation Vs 23/04/2025
(pending) Lg Of Delhi Next date:21-05-
11. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last date:
5617/2025 (Regd.) Vs Delhi 30/04/2025
(pending) Urban Next date:20-08-
Shelter Improvement 2025
Board & Ors
12. W.P.(C) Save India Last date:
6878/2025 Foundation Vs 21/05/2025
(disposed off) Lg Of Delhi & Ors.
13. W.P.(c) Save India Last date:
7517/2025 Foundation Vs 28/05/2025
Govt. Of Delhi & Ors.
14. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last date:
9372/2025,pil Vs 9/07/2025
Municipal Corporation
of
Delhi & Ors.
15. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
9972/2025 Vs. date:16/07/2025
,pil Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board &
Ors
16. W.P.(c) Save India Last
11111/2025 ,pil Foundation Vs date:30/07/2025
(disposed off) Govt. of NCT Of Delhi
&
Ors.
17. W.P.(c) Save India Last
11143/2025,pil Foundation(Regd.) Vs date:30/07/2025
(disposed off) Govt, of NCT of Delhi
&
Ors.
18. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
11701/2025,pil Vs. date:06/08/2025
Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board &
Ors
19. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
12203/2025,pil Vs. date:13/08/2025
Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board &
Ors
20. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
12502/2025,pil Vs. date:20/08/2025
(disposed off) Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board &
Ors
21. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
12569/2025,pil Vs. date:20/08/2025
(disposed off) Government of NCT of
Delhi & Ors.
22. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
13016/2025,pil Vs. date:27/08/2025
Govt, of NCT of Delhi
&
Ors.
23. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
13544/2025,pil Vs. date:03/09/2025
(disposed off) Delhi Cantonment
Board
& Ors.
24. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
13936/2025,pil (Regd.) date:10/09/2025
(disposed off) Vs. Govt, of NCT of
Delhi
& Ors.
25. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
14347/2025,pil (Regd.) date:17/09/2025
Vs. NHAI & Ors.
26. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
14375/2025,pil Vs. date:17/09/2025
(disposed off) Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board &
Ors
27. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
14816/2025,pil Vs. date:24/09/2025
(disposed off) Municipal Corporation
of
Delhi & Ors.
28. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
15836/2025,pil Vs. date:15/10/2025
(disposed off) Govt, of NCT of Delhi
&
Ors.
29. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
17153/2025,pil Vs. date:12/11/2025
(disposed off) Municipal Corporation
of
Delhi & Ors
30. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
17526/2025,pil Vs. date:19/11/2025
Municipal Corporation Next
of date:17/12/2025
Delhi & Ors.
31. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
18320/2025,pil Vs. date:03/12/2025
Municipal Corporation Next
of date:18/03/2025
Delhi & Ors.
32. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
18720/2025,pil Vs. date:10/12/2025
Municipal Corporation
of
Delhi & Ors.
33. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
96/2026,pil Vs. date:07/01/2026
Delhi Wakf Board &
Ors.
34. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
443/2026,pil Vs. date:21/01/2026
Delhi Wakf Board & Next
Ors date:22/04/2026
35. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
444/2026,pil Vs. date:21/01/2026
Municipal Corporation Next
Of date:22/04/2026
Delhi & Ors.
36. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
1558/2026,pil Vs date:04/02/2026
Municipal Corporation
of
Delhi & Ors.
37. W.P.(c) Save India Foundation Last
1939/2026,pil Vs Municipal date:11/02/2026
Corporation
of Delhi &
Ors.(Disposed
Off)
Beside these PIL's petitioner has also filed these cases before this court:
1. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Next date:
9492/2024 (Regd.) Vs. Rail Land 26/08/2025
[PENDING] Development Authority & Last date:
Ors. 25/03/2025
2. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Next date:
5571/2024 (Regd.) 07/08/2025
[PENDING] Vs. Govt. Of NctOf Delhi Last date:
& Ors. 18/02/2025
3. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Next date:
4867/2024 Regd 09/07/2025
[PENDING] Vs. Govt. Of Nct of Delhi Last date:
& Ors. 27/01/2025
4. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Last date:
13495/2024 (Regd.) 25/09/2024
[DISPOSED Vs. Municipal
OFF] Corporation Of
Delhi & Ors.
5. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Next date :
12753/2024 (Regd.) Last date:
[PENDING] Vs. Municipal 28/03/2025
Corporation Of
Delhi, &Anr.
6. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Next date
12211/2024 (Regd.) :30/04/2025
[PENDING] Vs. Chief Executive Last date:
Engineer, &Ors. 23/01/2025
7. W.P.(CRL) Save India Foundation Last date:
29/2024 (Regd.) 12/09/2024
[DISPOSED Vs. The State Govt. Of
OFF] NCT Of
Delhi
8. W.P.(CRL) Preet Singh Vs. Union Of Next date :
3274/2024 India And Ors 27/01/2025
[PENDING] Last date:
25/10/2024
9. WP (C) Preet Singh Vs Union Of Next date:
2872/2023 India & Ors 8/1/2025
(PENDING )
10. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Last date:
15644/2025 Vs. Delhi Urban Shelter 19/12/2025
[PENDING] Improvement Board &
Ors
11. W.P.(C) Save India Foundation Last date:
931/2026 Vs. Delhi Urban Shelter 22/01/2026
Improvement Board &
Ors
17. It is also worthwhile to notice that the petitioner in paragraph 9.3 of
the writ petition has stated that the police has falsely implicated the
authorised person of the Trust in various fake police cases due to political
considerations, but has not disclosed the details of the criminal cases.
18. The jurisprudence surrounding public interest litigation petitions has,
drastically relaxed the rule of locus to file a petition seeking protection of
rights of those who are in some disadvantageous situation for the reasons of
poverty, illiteracy or lack of awareness, etc. The rule of locus also stands
relaxed in case by instituting an appropriate proceeding, protection of the
right of the general public or a group of persons is sought; however, what is
to be kept in mind while entertaining such public interest litigation petition
is that it should necessarily espouse a public cause or should be filed in
public interest. Public interest litigation petition is a tool evolved by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts for a laudable purpose and
has served the public causes which otherwise could not be brought to the
attention of the Courts for many reasons. Having said that, we would also
like to observe that the purity of the stream of public interest litigation in the
country should not, at any cost, be permitted to be undermined by any
litigant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on umpteen number of occasions has
emphasised that on one hand it is the duty of the superior Courts to entertain
public interest litigation petitions for protecting and achieving greater public
interest, at the same time it is also the duty of the Courts to ensure that
frivolous petitions or petitions not filed with bonafide intentions or purpose
which are styled as public interest litigation petitions, should be nipped in
bud.
19. In Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, 2007 (14)
SCC 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed the development of public
interest litigation jurisprudence and has observed that a writ petitioner who
comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with
clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with clean heart, clean
mind and clean objective. It has also noticed certain observations made by
the Apex Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305,
where Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised the importance and
significance of this newly developed doctrine of public interest litigation,
however, it has also sounded a red alert and note of severe warning that the
Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a
meddlesome interloper or a wayfarer or officious intervener without any
interest or concern except personal gain or private profit or other oblique
consideration.
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. (supra) further
extracted certain observations made in Janata Dal (supra) where it was
stated that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceedings of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and
can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy suffering
from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain
or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Supreme
Court further observed in Janata Dal (supra) that a vexatious petition under
the colour of public interest litigation brought before the Court for
vindicating any personal grievance deserves rejection at the threshold.
Paragraph 10 and 11 of Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. (supra) are extracted
below:-
"10. "5. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a
public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal
disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with
the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider
the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public interest litigation
which has now come to occupy an important field in the
administration of law should not be 'publicity interest litigation' or
'private interest litigation' or 'politics interest litigation' or the latest
trend 'paise income litigation'. ... If not properly regulated and abuse
averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release
vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well. There must be real and
genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an
adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot
also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their
personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity.
The courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by
unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A
person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus
standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of
fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but
not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any
oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court
in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri)
36] and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI [1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 873] . A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in
public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ
petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.
(See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [1993 Supp (2) SCC 20]
and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand [(1994) 6 SCC 620] .)
6. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression 'public
interest litigation'. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.),
'public interest' is defined thus:
'Public interest.--(1) A matter of public or general interest "does not
mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of
information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community
have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected".'
7. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) 'public interest' is defined as
follows:
'Public interest.--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 the interests of the particular
localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest
shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national
Government.'
8. In Janata Dal case [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36] this
Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of
the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Court
has laid down as follows : (SCC p. 331)
'53. The expression "litigation" means a legal action including all
proceedings therein, initiated in a court of law with the purpose of
enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, 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 the community have pecuniary interest or some
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.'
9. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as
follows : (SCC p. 334)
'62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement
of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the
legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or
public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be
primarily ascertained at the threshold.'
10. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as
follows : (SCC pp. 345-46)
'98. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions 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
its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome
interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or
concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique
consideration.'
11. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as
follows : (SCC p. 348, para 109)
'109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus
standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor
and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not
a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any
oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour
of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal
grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.'
21. The observations made in paragraph 12 and 13 in Holicow Pictures
(P) Ltd. (supra) are also relevant to be extracted, which read as under:-
"12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery
proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted,
which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases
of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and
developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of
sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose
fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances
go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but
express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate
grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth
hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons
sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons
sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long
years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters--
government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein
huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax
amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the
detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue
for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their
grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers,
wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest
except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a
proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of
publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of
public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and
frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the
courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of
the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in
the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the
administration of our judicial system.
13. 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, the 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. The
petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at
the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
22. From the aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. (supra), what we notice is that Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been sounding caution while entertaining the public interest
litigation petition. Such a petition is a weapon which has to be used with
care and circumspection, and that the Courts should be extremely careful to
see that behind the beautiful wheel of public interest, an ugly private malice,
vested interest, or publicity seeking is not lurking. It has further been
observed that the attractive brand name of public interest litigation should
not be used for suspicious products of mischief; it should rather be aimed at
redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-
oriented or founded on personal vendetta. The Hon'ble Supreme Court goes
on to observe further that the Court must be careful to see that a body of
persons or a member of the public who approaches the Court is acting
bonafide and not for any oblique motive or consideration.
23. Another noticeable observation made in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd.
(supra) is that some persons with vested interest indulge in pastime of
meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or for improper
motives and often such petitions are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or
cheap popularity and therefore, petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be
thrown out at the threshold. The observations made in paragraph 17 of
Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. (supra) is also relevant to be extracted, which is
as under:-
"17. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which
though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something
else. It is shocking to note that the courts are flooded with a large
number of so-called public interest litigations where only a minuscule
percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigation.
Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been
indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of
the real intentions and objectives, the courts are entertaining such
petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above,
could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. ... It is also
noticed that the petitions are based on newspaper reports without any
attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in
several cases, newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition
based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their
authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such
petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of
statements made and information given in the petition. It would be
desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss
them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right
direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the
approval of the courts."
24. In State of Utrranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402,
the entire law relating to public interest litigation has been reviewed and
Hon'ble Supreme Court issued guiding directions which are contained in
paragraph 181 of the report, which is quoted hereunder:-
"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We
have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in
a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of
the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and
effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous
considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure
for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be
appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for
encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with
oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts
who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within
three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is
directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High
Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately
thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the
petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the
correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a
PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public
interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves
larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority
over other petitions.
(7) 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.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by
busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar
novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for
extraneous considerations."
25. If we carefully examine the facts and circumstances as pleaded in the
instant case and challenge made to the impugned notification after 46 years,
we find that the instant petition has not been filed with bonafide motive or in
public interest.
26. Even on merit, we may observe that the impugned notification was
issued after an inquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Wakfs, which is a
statutory authority, under Section 4(3) of the Act, 1954 and the list of wakf
properties was published under the impugned notification only on
examination of the said report received from the State Government which
was based on the inquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Wakfs.
27. Further, the provisions of the proviso appended to Section 6(1) of the
Act, 1954, needs to be noticed. As per the provisions of Section 6(1) of the
Act, 1954, any list of wakf property was subject to the outcome of any suit
which could be instituted in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for
decision of the question as to whether the property was rightly included in
the list of wakf properties. However, the proviso appended to Section 6(1)
of the Act, 1954 clearly bars institution of any suit before the Civil Court
after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of wakf under
Section 5(2) of the Act, 1954. Thus, if an ordinary civil remedy is barred by
proviso appended to Section 6(1) of the Act, 1954, entertaining a writ
petition seeking declaration that the certain properties enlisted in the
impugned notification are not Wakf properties, that too after 46 years, in our
opinion would legally be impermissible.
28. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the instant
petition, which is hereby dismissed along with pending applications.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(TEJAS KARIA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
"shailndra"
