L.S. Panta JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by which the Writ Petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (in short 'PIL') was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.
2. In the writ petition the stand taken by the appellant was as follows:
Respondent No. 4 had issued a Notification on 20.11.2002 in pursuance of Government Order dated 2.11.2002 under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (in short the 'Rules') for auction of mines of sand, boulders etc. located in the district of Saharanpur. As per the Notification the auction was to be held on 23.12.2002, but the same was postponed to 30.12.2002. According to the appellant, she was permitted to take part in the auction on 23.12.2002 but subsequently she was not allowed to participate and with a view to favour respondent No. 5, who was politically well connected, in a mala fide manner the auction was held. A writ petition was filed styled as PIL for direction to the authorities for investigating into the alleged irregularities. The High Court noted that one Mohd. Iqbal was the successful bidder who was not a party in the PIL. In any event, the appellant cannot file the PIL when she herself claimed to be an intending bidder. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
In support of the appeal, it has been submitted that the High Court errone outlay proceeded on a highly technical basis without appreciating that the public interest was involved, the State's largess was being given for a very paltry amount and, therefore, writ application should not have been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order stating that the High Court rightly observed that the petition though styled as a PIL was nothing but an attempt to misguide the Court. There was no public interest involved and in fact when the appellant was herself an intending bidder according to her own saying and as such the petition could not have been maintained. Additionally, a group of persons have challenged the legality of the auction in Writ Petition No. 349 of 2003 which is pending and the appellant is petitioner No. 11 in the said writ petition.
4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, 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 regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation, which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the second category. 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 and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of........