Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Commandant General And Others on 1 August, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097882-DB
(113)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-PIL-152-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 01.08.2024
Bhupinder Singh
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Commandant General, Home Guards and Director Civil Defence,
Punjab, Chandigarh and others.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:-
Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate,
Ms. Deepshikha, Advocate,
Ms. Sushmeet Kaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by way of the present petition which is categorized
as Public Interest Litigation, prays for the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to
initiate criminal proceedings against respondent No. 4 for cheating and forgery
of the certificate by virtue of which he projected himself to be middle pass and
took employment with respondent No. 2 on the basis of forged certificate.
(ii) The erring officials of the department of respondents No. 1 and 2
be brought to books who mislead the police by giving false information.
2. The grievance of the petitioner, essentially, relates to inaction on
the part of respondents No. 1 and 2 to initiate criminal prosecution against
respondent No. 4 who is alleged to have indulged in certain acts of offences
punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097882-DB
CWP-PIL-152-2024 (O&M) -2-
3. It is settled principle, in view of a string of judgements of Apex
Court in Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Vs State of Rajasthan and
others, (2014) 5 SCC 530 and Jafar Imam Naqvi Vs Election Commission of
India, (2014) 15 SCC 420, that in the event of availability of an alternative
statutory remedy, the cause raised in a writ petition filed as Public Interest
Litigation ought not to be entertained unless the said remedy is exhausted.
4. The relevant portions of the said judgements are reproduced
below:-
Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Vs State of Rajasthan and
others (supra):-
"49. The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon
which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are
handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other
downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the
cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is
espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming
across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain
individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while
entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal
with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the
public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very
purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue
of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should
discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and
the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable
for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while
protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same
time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be
granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are
at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy
or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under
a particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the
appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as
public interest litigation."
Jafar Imam Naqvi Vs Election Commission of India (supra):-
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097882-DB
CWP-PIL-152-2024 (O&M) -3-
"9. The petitioner has submitted that this Court being the
guardian of the Constitution is obligated to issue notice, call for
the response and issue appropriate directions. Be it stated, the
Election Commission might have taken note of it and initiated
certain action. The matter of handling hate speeches could be a
matter of adjudication in an appropriate legal forum and may
also have some impact in an election dispute raised under the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, to entertain a
petition as a public interest litigation and to give directions would
be inappropriate. We have said so in view of the judgments in
Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil [Manohar Joshi v. Nitin
Bhaurao Patil, (1996) 1 SCC 169] and Ramchandra G. Kapse v.
Haribansh Ramakbal Singh [Ramchandra G. Kapse v. Haribansh
Ramakbal Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 206]."
5. Accordingly, this Court declines interference and relegates the
petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 173/175 or Section 223 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), as the case may be.
6. The petition stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
01.08.2024
Amodh Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
