The Bombay High Court has held that the purpose of filing a public interest litigation is not to collect information from various Authorities.
The Nagpur Division Bench of Justice Sunil B.Shukre and Justice M.W. Chandwani heard a PIL expressing grievance of overcharging of fees by certain schools.
Prima facie, the Court found that the petition expressing grievance of overcharging of fees by certain Schools is not maintainable as the Schools, which have actually overcharged fees according to the petitioner, have not been made parties to the petition. Then, the petition has been filed in an individual capacity and it is not the grievance of the petitioner in individual capacity that excess fee was charged from his ward. The petitioner claims to be President of Vidarbha Parents Association, but the particular instances of overcharging of fees by different Schools have not been stated in the petition , the Bench noted.
The petitioner has filed applications under the Right to Information Act seeking certain information, but it appears to the Court that the petitioner has used this public interest litigation for obtaining information from the Public Information Officer as in the applications filed by him, he has made a specific mention of pendency of this petition and the reason of information required is stated as it is to be filed in the present public interest litigation.
“The purpose of the public interest litigation is not for collecting information from various Authorities. The purpose of public interest litigation is to serve the public cause, remove injustice being caused to public at large and protect whatever loss is caused in the larger public interest. The purpose of public interest litigation is not to put any sort of pressure upon any Authority so as to make that Authority act in a particular way”, the Court held.
The High Court is of the view that the petitioner ought not to have disclosed pendency of the petition in the applications filed by him under the Right to Information Act.
The petitioner would also have remedy of approaching the State Government first by giving specific instances of overcharging of fees by particular Schools, which presently has not been availed of in an effective manner. Whatever representation that has been made by the petitioner appears to be of general nature, which will not serve the object sought to be achieved by the petitioner through this petition. The object of this petition apparently may be for protecting larger public interest, but the Court is of the view that there is a way of achieving such an object. Proper procedure has to be followed and the grievances are required to be raised before appropriate Authority and only as a last resort that such a person may invoke the public interest litigation jurisdiction of the Court and that too, when the requisite material is already available , observed the Bench.
With these observations, the Court granted time to the Counsel for the petitioner, to seek appropriate instructions in the matter.