IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8961 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.5.2010 Swami Sarva Nand ..Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr.Harpreet Singh Giani, Advocate for the petitioners ……… MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed in the public interest jurisdiction of this Court. 2. When asked about the locus of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner said that in the PIL jurisdiction, the question of locus is not relevant. He also submitted that deserving doctors have been left out while selecting respondent No.5 in an illegal manner. 3. In our view, the question of locus is a primary question which is required to be addressed before the PIL is entertained. The petitioner has to establish his credentials before a Public Interest Litigation can be entertained. CWP No. 8961 of 2010 4. It is well settled law that the Court, before admitting the PIL, has to be satisfied about credentials of the applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.B.Singh v. Union of India and others, 2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 363 laid down the following proposition of law:- “14. 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 busy bodies 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.” 5. Quite apart from the fact that essential dispute arising in the present writ petition appears to be a service matter for which no PIL lies, the petitioner’s plea that deserving doctors have been left out, cannot be entertained at the behest of the petitioner because if some eligible doctors have been left out, such doctors are educated and resourceful enough to file their own petition(s). 6. In this regard a reference is made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 273, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following proposition of law:- “there is no doubt that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of 2 CWP No. 8961 of 2010 strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal, the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated” 7. We also asked the petitioner whether as a public spirited citizen, he has espoused any other cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to answer this question at this juncture. The challenge sought to be made in the PIL is to the appointment made pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.3.2005. Respondent No.5’s services have been regularized in 2006. No explanation with regard to delay in filing the petition has been given in the writ petition. Therefore, besides the reasons cited above, the petition also suffers from unexplained laches. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 27.05.2010 (JASBIR SINGH) gk JUDGE 3