IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 3552 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. LATE A.D.NAMBIAR, AGED 46 YEARS, KURUVAYIL HOUSE, P.O. MOTTAMMAL, PIN-670331, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, 3079/3, JB TITO MARG, SADIQ NAGAR,NEW DELHI-110049 4. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BPCL, BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001. R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) & SRI.S.SUJIN R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3552 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ petition is styled as a public interest litigation. In the writ petition the prayer is to quash the guidelines issued by the respondents for selection and appointment of LPG distributors. In the writ petition it is asserted that certain conditions imposed in the guidelines and the notification issued pursuant to those guidelines are arbitrary, illegal etc. 2. In our view, the petition filed is for agitating the private grievance in the garb of public interest. The Apex Court in the several decisions rendered has discouraged this type of litigation. It is worthwhile to recall the observations made by the court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333. The court has observed:- “PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief”. 3. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain this public interest W.P.(C) No.3552 of 2008 2 litigation filed by K.Vijayakumar. Accordingly, we reject the writ petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner, if for any reason, he is one of the applicants before the respondents pursuant to the notification issued by them for selection and appointment of LPG distributors, to agitate all grievances by filing an appropriate petition before appropriate forum. 4. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE vns/dk