M/S. HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD.versusPREM CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS.

 A                  MIS. HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD.                                  I   °",
                                   v.
                     PREM CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS.

                              DECEMBER 6, 2007
B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P . SATHASIVAM, JJ.)                                  '
                                                                                 f

         Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition styled as
   Public Interest Litigation-By a spokesperson ofrecognized political
C party-Challenging allotment ofplots by State Government-High
   Court concluding the allotments as being irregular on the basis of
  files-Parties not asked by the Court to clarify the doubts-On appeal,
   held: The Writ Petition was not in public interest-Even ifthe petition
   is notfound to be in public interest, ifthe Court finds that there is scope
D for dealing with the matter farther in greater public interest, it can be
  done-Jn view ofthe manner, the High Court came to its conclusion,
  matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration-Public Interest
  Litigation.
E        Public Interest Litigation (P IL)--Scope of-Held: PIL is a weapon
   which has to be used with great care and circumspection-It is to be
  used for delivering social justice-A person acting bona fide and
  having sufficient interest in the proceedings ofpublic interest litigation
  alone has locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out
  violation offandamental rights and infraction ofstatutory provisions-
F Where PIL is found to be merely a camouflage to foster personal                    ~ ·
  disputes, it has to be thrown out-A petition based on news reports
  without verifying their authenticity should not normally be
  entertained-Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence
  to file misconceived and frivolous petitions-Constitution of India,
G 1950-Article 226.
           Respondent, a spokes-person of a recognized political party
     tiled a writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation alleging that
     land given to the appellant through its director-respondent No.5, at
H                                     1068
               HOLICOWPICTURESPVT.LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA 1069
                              MISHRA
             different places in the State, by the State Government without issuing A
             any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of
             those plots; that the allotment was without following any norms or
             procedure; that the act of the State Government caused heavy loss
             to the State; and that the action was based on political considerations
             and was, therefore, malajide. High Court observed that allotment B
             was done in irregular manner. It rejected the allegation of malafide
             giving benefit of doubt to State. The authority concerned was
             directed to resume possession of the land. Hence, the present appeal.

                 Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
             Court, the Court                                                C

                   HELD: 1.1. 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. Public
             Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field D
             in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest
             litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest
             litigation" or the latesttrend "paise income litigation". If not property
             regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous
             hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must E
             be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation.
                                                        [Para 10) [1076-G; 1077-A)

                  1.2. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by
             unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction.
i   -~       A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the F
             proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi
             and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental
             rights and infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain
             or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.
                                                              [Para 10) [1077-B, C] G

         J       Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, [1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi
             Lhendup Dorjiv. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, [1994) Supp 2 SCC
             116, relied on
                  1.3. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public H
    1070          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2007] 12 S.C.R.


A interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ
  petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.
                                                      [Para 10] (1077-D)
        Ramjas Foundation v. Union ofIndia, AIR (1993) SC 852 and
    KR. Srinivas v. R.M Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620, referred to.
B
        1.4. On account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before
  the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the time which otherwise
  could have been spent for disposal of cases of the genuine litigants.
  The busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious
  interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal
C 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
D and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the
  Courts never moves, which piquant situation c1·eates frustration in
  the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in
  the administration of our judicial system.
                                            (Para 17) (1079-B, C, F, G, HJ
E       1.5. 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
F armory 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. 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
G 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. The petitions
  of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the
  threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
H                                           [Para 18) [1080-A, B, C, DJ
                   HOLICOWPICTURESPVT.LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA                      1071
 .l
                                  MISHRA
      .!   i         State ofHP. v. A Parent ofa Student ofMedical College, Simla A
_,               and Ors., (1985] 3 SCC 169, relied on.
                       1.6. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of
                 the applicant; (b) the primafacie correctness or nature of information
                 given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The
  _..            information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has B
           _)_
                 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 c
                 afford to be liberal. [Para 20) [1080-G, H; 1081-A]
                      1. 7. 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 D
           -{
                 refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public
                 good. [Para21] (1081-C)
                      State ofMaharashtra v. Prabhu [1994) 2 SCC 481; and Andhra
                 Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and
                 Anr., AIR (1994) SC 2151, referred to.                              E

                       1.8. 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. [Para 21) (1081-D, E] F
      ' ~
                       Dr. B.K Subbarao v. Mr. K Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265, referred
                 to.
                      1.9. Relaxation of the rule oflocus standi in the field of PIL does
                 not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to G
                 approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant.
                                                                     [Para 23) [1082-C)
                     SP. Guptav. Union ofIndia, [1981] Supp. SCC 87, relied on.
                     1.10. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without H
    1072          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. Such     r '-
  petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of
  statements made and information given in the petition. Newspaper
  reports do not constitute evidence. [Para 22) (1082-A, BJ

       Ashok Kumar Pandeyv. State ofWest Bengal, [2004) 3 SCC 349;
B Dr. B. Singh v. Union ofIndia and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 363; Dattaraj
  Nathuji Thaware v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors., (2005) 1SCC590,          >- ....
    relied on.

       Stroud 's Judicial Dictionary Volume 4 (IV Edition); Black's Law
c Dictionary (Sixth Edition); Report ofPublic Interest Law, USA, 1976
  by The Council for Public Interest Law, referred to.
        2.1. It is true that in certain cases even though the Court comes
  to the conclusion that the writ petition was not in a public interest,
  yet if it finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter further
D in greater public interest, it can be done. This can be done by keeping
  the writ.petitioner out of picture and appointing an amicus curiae.
  This can only be done in exceptional cases and not in a routine
  manner. [Para 26) (1082-G; 1083-A)

E       2.2. In the instant case, It is true that the High Court's
  conclusions were drawn after going through the files. However, It is
  apparent from records that the High Court did not ask the parties
  to clarify any doubt it entertained as regards certain crucial aspects.
  These aspects assume considerable importance because they have
F formed the foundation of the High Court's conclusions about
  irregularity/illegalityin allotment. In the circumstances the order of
  the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh
  consideration. [Paras 27 and 28] [1083-A, B, CJ
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5671 of
G 2007.
        From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2006 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 9085/2006.
           Harish N. Salve, Aprajita Singh and N. Annapoorani for the
H
            HOLICOWPICTURESPVT.LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA 1073
                      MISHRA[PASAYAT,J.]
         Appellant.                                                                    A
              P.S. Patwalia, Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Anil Kumar Jha, Braj Kishore
         Mishra, Apama Jha, Tanushree Sinha, Abhishek Yadav, Vikrant, U.K.
         Jha and Gopal Singh for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               B
·~   ~
              DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Leave granted.
               2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench
         of the Patna High Court disposing the writ petition filed by the respondent
         No. I styled as a "Public Interest Litigation". The order gave certain c
         directions and nullifying certain allotments of land made in favour of
         respondent No.5. In the writ petition action of the State Government of
         Bihar in granting appellant through its Director Prakash Jha land pieces
         in the Industrial areas in Patna, Hajipur, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Buxar.
         The writ petitioner alleged that the said Prakash Jha, Director of present D
         appellant who was respondent No.5 in the writ petition was given land in
         return of services rendered by him to help the present Chief Minister to
         win last assembly elections. It was alleged that the action of the
         Government amounted to doling out valuable State property as largess
         at throw away prices for political considerations.                           E
                3. The writ petition was filed, and was claimed to be, in public
         interest. The respondent described himself as the Chief Spokesperson of
         the Indian National Congress, a recognized political party. His party
         contested the previous election in alliance with the party that was in power
 >   4   at that time. The alliance got worsted in the election and Congress party F
         was returned as a poor fourth. Respondent no.5 is a private limited
         company; it is represented through aperson who is well-known as a film-
         maker but who also takes part in electoral politics. In the supplementary
         affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was stated that Prakash Jha had fought
         the 2004 Lok Sabha Election from the Bettiah Lok Sabha Constituency. G
     {   It is further stated that in. the last assembly election held in October-
         November, 2005 though not a candidate himself, he addressed public
         meetings jointly with the present Chief Minister in various parts of the State.
         As both the petitioner and said Prakash Jha are political persons, it is not
         sruprising that the pleadings are heavy with political invectives.              H
    1074           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007] 12 S.C.R.

                                                                                  r ,,
A       4. In the writ petition, it was stated that the Bihar Industrial Area
  Development Authofity (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") has
  given large areas of land at various places to respondent no.5 at
  throwaway prices. It was further stated that allotments ofland were made
  to respondent no.5 without issuing any notice, inviting competitive bids,
B and the land areas were granted to respondent no.5 at very cheap rates
  without following the established norms and procedure. According to him
  the market value of the said land plosts was much higher. For instance, in
  Patliputra Industrial Area, Patna one acre land was given to respondent
  no.5 for Rs.14,65,000.00. This piece ofland should have fetched the State
c about rupees five crores if allotments were to be made on the basis of
  competitive bidding. It was also stated that in a blatant show of favour,
  respondent no.5 was also given the Authority's Office building along with
  the land in Patliputra Industrial Area. The favour was crowned by putting
  a very low value for the building. It was also alleged that the action of the
0 State Government/Authority in granting to respondent no.5 land at different
  places was an act of malafide and called for institution of criminal cases
  against the concerned people and an investigation by the Central Bureau
  of Investigation.
        5. The wiit petition, in brief, made three allegations. (i) land plots
E were given to respondent no.5 at different places in the. State without
  issuing any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price
  of those land plots, (ii) the allotment -was made without following any
  norms or procedure and (iii) the action of the State Government caused
  heavy loss to the. State; the action was based on political considerations
F and was, therefore, malafide.
        6. The respondents in the writ petition questioned bonafides of the
  writ petitioner. They took the stand that there was nothing illegal and the
  entire action was bonafide in the greater interests of the State. It was
  pointed out that the malafides of the writ petitioner are clear from the
G fact that the writ petitioner did not question legality of the action of the
  then State Government who had in the year 1996 allotted the land in the
  Patliputra Industrial areas to one Mis Dynax Digital Studio (Ind) Pvt. Ltd.
  for con5ideration ofRs.5.5 lakhs. The allotment made was subsequently
  cancelled and the consideration for allotment was fixed by raising the land
H
  HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA l 075
             MISHRA[PASAYAT,J.]
value at the rate of 10% only as provided in Govt. letter dated 17.7.1982. A
It was also submitted that the petition was an abuse of Public Interest
Litigation and deserves to be rejected outright.
      7. After referring to the various stands, ultimately, the High Court
came to observe that there was more than what met the eye and the
allotment of land plots to respondent no.5 was done in a thoroughly B
irregular manner and the allotments are completely untenable. So far as
the charge of malafides is concerned the State's submission was accepted
by giving "benefit of doubt". It was, however, observed that the authorities
were in a hurry to go for private investment and that might have led to
non-observance to some of the official norms was held to be completely C
unacceptable. The writ petition was disposed of with following
observations and directions.
           "In the facts and circumstances discussed above, I reject the
       allegation of malafide. But at the same time, I am unable to accept D
       the submission that the Court should not interfere in the matter
       because the writ petition may not qualify as Public Interest
       Litigation. In view of the facts coming to its notice, the only proper
       course for the Court is to intervene and to set things right. I
       therefore, feel constrained to interfere with the allotments made by E
       the Authority in favour of respondent No.5. All the allotments of
       lands made in favour of respondent No. 5 are accordingly quashed.
       The Authority is directed to resume possession of the lands. It will
       be open to respondent no. 5 to make fresh applications with
       proper Project Reports and supporting documents for allotment F
       of lands to it at different centres. In case such applications made,
       the authority shall consider them in accordance with las and take
       a decision on those applications within three months of the date of
       their receipt in its office. It will be open to respondent No.5 either
       to get back all its money deposited with the Authority or in case it
       makes fresh applications to wait till the final decision on those G
       applications is taken by the Authority.
          This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations
       and directions. There will be no order as to costs."
                                                                              H
     1076           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A        8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
   submitted that there was complete violation of principles of natural justice
   in the instance case. The High Court's observations were contrary to the
   materials on record. The High Court appears to have based its conclusions
  on a reading of the files without any opportunity to either the authorities
B or the State Government and in any event not to the present appellant to
  explain the fact situation. If the High Court had any doubt about any aspect
  which according to it was relevant, opportunity in that regard should have
  been given. Unfortunately that has not been done. It is pointed out that
  the High Court has rightly rejected the stand of the writ petitioner about
c malafides. That was sufficient to through out the writ petition at the
  threshold. Instead of that the High Court referred to the records and came
  to conclusions finding alleged discrepancies without grant of opportunity.
  'Ibe conclusions are contrary to the materials available and in any event
  the High Court ought not to have relied solely on the counter affidavits
D filed which were in fact replies to the averments made in the writ petition.
  Most of the conclusions of the High Court related to aspects which were
  not even pleaded in the writ petition. That being so, there was no scope
  for the respondents in the writ petition to throw any light on aspects which
  ultimately were taken note of by the High Court. It is pointed out that the
E writ petitioner himself accepted that he was a functionary of a political
  party. The petition is nothing but political vendata unleashed.
        9. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and the Authority
  supported the stand taken by the appellant. On the contrary the respondent
  No. I -writ petitioner submitted that merely because the High Court has
F given the "benefit of doubt" to the State Government, it could not have
  closed eyes to the apparent illegalities which a bare perusal of the records
  revealed. The State and the Authorities, it is submitted, filed affidavits taking
  contrary stands. Stand which was stated in one affidavit was subsequently
  departed from.
G
        l 0. 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
H regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now
              HOLICOWPICTURESPVT.LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA 1077
                        MISHRA[PASAYAT,J.]
            come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not A
            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 wreck vengeance, as well.
            There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation B
....,. _;   and not merely an adventure of knight errant home 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.
            Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous
             litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona c
            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 infiaction 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 D
             in The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, [1992] 4 SCC 305, and Kazi
             Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [1994] Supp 2
             SCC 116. 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 E
             Foundation v. Union of India, AIR (1993) SC 852 and KR. Srinivas
             v. R.Af. Premchand, [1994] 6 SCC 620].
                  11. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public
            interest litigation'. Jn Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),
,. .;       'Public Interest' is defined thus:                                            F
                   "Public Interest ( 1) a matter of public or general interest does not
                   mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of
                   infmmation or anmsement but that in which a class of the community
                   have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal lights
                   or liabilities are affected."                                           G
                 12. In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is
            defined as follows:
                    "Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by
                                                                                          H
     1078            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A           which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean
            anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the
            matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."

        13. InJanata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of
B public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said judgment, after considering
  what is public interest, has laid down as follows:
            "The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all
            proceedings therein initiated in a Court oflaw for the enforcement
            of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression
c           "PIL" means the 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."
         14. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out
D as follows:
            "Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis 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
E           public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to
            be primarily ascertained at the threshold."
           15. In para 96 of the said judgment, it hasfurther been pointed out
    as follows:

F           "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 busy
G
            body 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."
          16. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as
    follows:
H
        HOLICOWPICTURESPVT.LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA 1079
                  MISHRA [PASAYAT,J.]
             "It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having A
             sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as 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 B
             under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating
             any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold".
            17. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery
      proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the
      time which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of the C
      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, un-
      represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion D
      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 E
      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 Jong serpentine queue for years with
. J   the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances F
      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 G
      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 loose faith in the administration of our judicial system. H
      1080            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 12 S.C.R.


 A       18. 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 armory oflaw for delivering social justice to
B 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, Court must be
  careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who
C 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
D 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 busy
  bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in
  appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
E         19. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford
     Foundation in USA defined the ''public interest litigation" in its report of
     Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
             "Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to
             efforts provide legal representation to previously unrepresented
F            groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the
             recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to
             provide such services to significant segments of the population and
             to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper
             environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and
G            others."
       20. 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; (c) the information being not vague and ~definite. The information
H should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance
        ~
        '

                HOLICOW PICTURES PVT. LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA                        1081
                           MISHRA[PASAYAT,J.]
             between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge A
             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 B
.· -(       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 ofjustice. They
            pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no c
            interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
                    21. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent
              law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by
              inte1fering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere
             where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of D
   -<
             Maharashtra v. Prabhu, [1994] 2 SCC 481 andAndhra Pradesh State
             Financial Corporation v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR
             (1994) SC 2151,. No litigant has aright 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 E
             file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K Subbarao v. Mr.
             K Parasaran, (l 996) 7 JT 265). 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.
, -.{                                                                                      F
                   22. 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 Courts are flooded with large number of so called
            public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately
            be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public
            interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of G
            cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are
            entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as
            noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. It
            is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any
                                                                                           H
    1082           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A 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
B given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the
  frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the         1-   ~
  message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive
  do not have the approval of the Courts.
C         23. In SP. Gupta v. Union of India, [1981] Supp. SCC 87, it
    was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi
    in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome
    interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant.
    He has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24)
D          "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who
           approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and
           not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other
           oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be
           abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative
E          action or to gain a political objective."
          24. In State of HP. v. A Parent ofa Student ofMedical College,
    Simla and Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 169, it has been said that public interest
    litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and
    circumspection.
F
          25. These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey
    v. State of West Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union
    of India & Ors. [2004] 3 SCC 363 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v.
    State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2005] 1 SCC 590.
G         26. It is true that in certain cases even though the Court comes to
    the conclusion that the writ petition was not in a public interest, yet if it
    finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter further in greater public
    interest, it can be done. This can be done by keeping the writ petitioner
    out of picture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be done in
H
             ~-
                  '

                         HOLICOWPICTURESPVT.LTD. v. PREM CHANDRA 1083
                                   MISHRA[PASAYAT,J.]
                      exceptional cases and not in a routine manner.                                A
                            27. It is true as contented by learned counsel for the appellant that
                      the High Court's conclusions were drawn after going through the files. It
                      is apparent from records that the High Court did not ask the parties to
                      clarify any doubt it entertained as regards certain crucial aspects. These
- -~                  aspects assume considerable importance because they have formed the B
                      foundation of the High Court's conclusions about irregularity/illegality in
                      allotment.
                            28. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the High Court
                      and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say the parties c
                      shall be perh1itted to place material in support of their respective stand,
                      in addition to those which are already on record and the High Court shall
                      thereafter take a decision in the matter within four weeks. Further affidavits
                      shall be filed with all relevant details/documents by the parties. We make
                      it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. D
    -    \

                           ·29. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
                      K.K.T.                                             Appeal partly allowed.




'       .)




             .)