The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed praying that a direction be issued against respondents so as to not enable the 5th respondent Society to misappropriate the funds by misutilization of the funds and further to take action against the concerned in accordance with law.
The Petition has been filed purportedly in public interest by the petitioners, who claim to be the members of the Payakaraopeta Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (respondent No.5) . The petitioners claim that the petition has been filed in the larger interest of the members of the Society and that the petitioners themselves do not have any personal interest in the matter.
The allegations mainly levelled are that the Society was purchasing agricultural land for setting up of a retail petroleum outlet by spending as much as Rs.29 lakhs from the funds of the Society even when the value of the land, which was sought to be purchased, was not more than Rs.7 – 8 lakhs. It is also urged that there was no necessity at all to purchase the subject land when the Society was running into losses and had obtained a loan for an amount of Rs.25.45 lakhs from the District Cooperative Central Bank against the deposits of the Society.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao noted that the contradiction is seen writ large on the face of the record inasmuch as the petitioners, on the one hand, claim that they do not have any personal interest in the matter and that the petition was being filed in the larger interest of the members of the Society – respondent No.5 herein, on the other hand, the petitioners themselves claim to be the members of the same society i.e., respondent No.5. “It clearly appears to us to be a petition filed against respondent No.5 in which the petitioners, being members of the Society, have clearly a deep personal interest.”
From the allegations reflected in the Petition, the Bench noted that the petition has been filed to settle personal scores in regard to the management and affairs of the Society.
Time and again, the Apex Court, in a plethora of judgments, has reiterated the need to exercise care and caution while entertaining petitions purportedly filed in public interest inasmuch as the process of the Court was being blatantly abused by filing petitions with oblique motives.
In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary , the Apex Court had emphasized that it was only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL alone would have a locus standi and could 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 who could maintain such a petition. It was further held that a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves to be rejected at the threshold.
In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra , it is held as under:
“12. 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….
13……
- 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 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.”
The same was reiterated in Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Others.
“Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the judgments referred to hereinabove, it can clearly be seen that the petitioners have a personal motive and interest in challenging the decisions of the Society inasmuch as they themselves are members of the said Society and clearly the petition has been filed to settle personal scores. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the present petition has not been filed in general public interest but only for oblique purposes. We accordingly dismiss the petition”, the order reads.