Ashirbad Pattnaik And Others vs Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12357 Ori

A.F.R.



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                      W.P.(C) No.33158 of 2021
                 An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

                 Ashirbad Pattnaik and others                   ....        Petitioners

                                                   -versus-

                 Union of India and others                      ....        Opp. Parties


                 Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

                 For Petitioners                   :   Mr. Sambit Samal, Advocate

                                                   -versus-
                 For Opp. Parties                  :   None


                              CORAM:
                              JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
                              JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                 DATE OF HEARING:-02.12.2021
                                DATE OF JUDGMENT:-02.12.2021

         J. Singh, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners purportedly in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation seeking reliefs against the State and some of the private opposite parties alleging some illegal mining and transportation of minerals etc. resulting in loss of public exchequer.

2. Without going into the merits of the matter, we feel the procedural improprieties resorted to by the petitioners herein

and their counsel persuade us to believe that there is something much more than which meets the eye.

3. We find from the perusal of the file attached herewith that the same advocate had filed a previous writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (C) 16719 of 2020 with different set of petitioners (11 in number) with similar content and seeking identical relief sought herein. We find further from the perusal of the file of the earlier similar Public Interest Litigation-W.P.(C) No.16719 of 2020 attached herewith that the allegation/grievance raised in both the petitions are similar in substance. In fact, it is noticed that the advocate in both the petitions is the same i.e. one Mr. Sambit Samal. What has changed is that the earlier set of petitioners have merely been replaced by another set of petitioners and some minor alterations have been made in the pleadings in the subsequent/instant Writ Petition. The aforesaid writ petition got dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2020.

This Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant; prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him and the information furnished being not vague and indefinite. But in the present case, we find it to be a mischievous petition seeking to assail with oblique motives which prevents us from invoking our discretionary writ jurisdiction.

4. No declaration has been made so as to validate the bona fide of the petitioners or to demonstrate in what manner they have been said to be public spirited persons except for the fact that

they are purportedly residents of Keonjhar. It also reveals that in order to pay a lip service to the rules a representation has been made in order to facilitate the filing of the present writ petition.

5. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to briefly deal with the relevant rules. The petition has not been filed in the form appended to the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 wherein Rule 6 clearly stipulates that "Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be in the form appended here to". In gross contravention to the mandatory requirements of the form, the petitioners have deliberately suppressed that a previous Writ Petition (PIL) was filed by the same Advocate in question on the very same issue vide W.P.(C) PIL No.16719 of 2020 and the same was withdrawn by the order dated 21.07.2020. Also, the petitioners have not annexed any document in order to validate either their credentials or to demonstrate that they are public spirited persons, except for a bald pleading to that effect. Even the addresses of most of the petitioners are incomplete in contravention to Rule 5 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. A bare perusal of Rule 5 of the extant rules demonstrates that an obligation is cast upon the court itself to verify and satisfy itself as to the bona fide of not only the cause in question but also the parties who bring such a cause to the court. Rule 5 of the rules provides as hereunder:

" 5.The Court before entertaining the PIL is to prima facie

(i) verify the credentials of the petitioner/ petitioners

(ii) shall satisfy with regard to the correctness of the contents of the petition and

(iii) shall satisfy that substantial public interest involved in the PIL."

6. Further, Rule 7 of the said Rules provides that if certain pleadings in the petition are based on news reports, the petitioners must verify as to the veracity of the pleadings being made therein and it must be specifically stated that the said exercise as postulated under the said Rule has been undertaken. Such a verification assumes significance because the courts place heavy reliance upon the counsels who appear in the matters and the pleadings being made by parties before it. It must be borne in mind that in petitions which seek to address a public interest, the parties approaching the court must come with clean hands and the same must be borne from the records of the case itself. Generally, the courts rely on the counsels to advise their clients to be truthful and explain to them the consequences that entail in the event of misadventures. More so, in the case of Public Interest Litigation the petitioners must be like the proverbial Caesar's wife "above suspicion". The said Rule 7 reads as hereinunder:

7. The petition shall contain the facts of the case in chronological order. If the petition is based on news report, it must be stated as to whether the petitioner has verified the truth of the facts by personally visiting the place or by talking to the people concerned or has verified from the reporter or editor of the newspaper concerned.

In the same vein, Rule 9 deals with frivolous and vexatious PILs and provides that where the Court is of the opinion that the PIL petition filed by the petitioner is frivolous or vexatious or is devoid of public interest or is filed as camouflage to foster

personal gain or is filed for extraneous and ulterior motives, it shall dismiss the same with exemplary cost. In the instant case, despite the earlier petition based on the same subject matter with different set of parties being dismissed, the advocate in question should have known better and advised his purported "clients" accordingly. Instead, another set of petitioners have been replaced in the place of the earlier petitioners while keeping most of the contents of petition unchanged.

7. In fact, almost immediately after the advent of PILs on the jurisprudential horizon of the country, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College reported in (1985) 3 SCC 169 used a word of caution wherein it has noted that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. In his separate supplementing judgment Khalid, J. recognized the pitfalls attached to such petitions and foresaw those certain self-imposed restrictions might be the call of the hour in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 295 said:

"....46. Today public-spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion.

....59. Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow

of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions.

....61. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants."

Overtime, having noticed the growing trend of abuse of such petitions the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349 laid down certain parameters, which now stand codified in the form of various High Court rules, by laying down as follows:

"14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and

(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public- spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of 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.

15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu [(1994) 2 SCC] and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills [(1994) 2 SCC 647]) No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran [(1996) 5 SCC 530] .] Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public."

8. In the case of KushumLata v. Union of India reported in (2006) 6 SCC 180, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that when genuine litigants with legitimate grievances are 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. It would be profitable at this stage to reproduce the observations which were as hereunder:

"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 unauthorized 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."

9. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

10. We would have ordinarily observed something against the counsel appearing in the case. However, keeping in view the early stages of his career, we refrain from commenting upon his conduct except to advise him to be careful in future and not be a party to such a litigation initiated by unscrupulous litigants.

The Registry is also directed to stringently comply with the rules as indicated hereinabove while dealing with Public

Interest Litigations so as to prevent valuable judicial time from being wasted and prevent certain unscrupulous elements from weaponizing petitions in courts of law.

11. We feel constrained to direct the petitioners (10 in number) to deposit cost of Rs.5,000/- each (totalling Rs.50,000/-) before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund positively within four weeks from today, failing which Collector, Keonjhar shall proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue and ensure the deposit of the recovered amount as stated hereabove.

( Jaswant Singh) Judge

(S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, December 2nd, 2021/PCD