Hi$i~i CQIJRT GF C§§HATTI$GARH AT B§L§$Pi§R E§V§$IQM BENCH HewigLE SHRI RAJEEV Gupm, w. & HQM’%LE SHRI $LSML KUMAR S!N§'§I§, J. 65mm Firii‘ ?e€iti0 W n Na3135 of 2%55 $E’fi‘3‘k3NER Prabhat Mishraz son cf Shri Keyur ahushan Mishra, aged about 45 Raipur. years, residenf of Sunder Nagar, ‘Kjéfsm 1. Union of India, fhrough i‘ne Secretary, Ministry sf Ceai & Mines, New Dew. 2. Centrai Bureau of fnvesiigaiion, €hrough itS Direcmr, Biaak N63, CGO Cgmpiex, New Eeihi. 3. Mt MK. @‘happar, Chairman-cum- Managing Directer, Smith Eas%em Biiaspuf. Coaifieids mil, SeepEt Road; £ES§GN§3EM§S 3i‘h'd WR3‘5‘ ?E?§WON Ui‘xEER ARTE$LE 226i22? {3? THE €$§S?§T§£T§Q%§ Qt ENFB’é Pye‘mm 8hr: K$hvtéz $harma, ceunsel ,fsr the pehi‘aoner. @R§ER {m S! sf §§G¥EL ‘ 2W8} The f0§ Rajwv Gupms C“; Petmbner Prab‘nai Mishfa has f§éed this w as Pubiic imerest Litigation for the foi “aj: A writ anéIoa’ an order 'm %he naz‘ufe of Wit a? mandamas Ge i3sue cemmanding and directing the resmndents to prcduce aii the £393 { éowéng order 0f ihe Couni was passed by rit §et§iion styied iowing re§§efs : in reiation ta CBI invest§gaiien J enquiry irTto the acts 0f respmdent N33 incguding any recommendation made far hgs presecut§on and the dec§s§on thereon and after eerusa! of the same pass an appropriate W‘nyan ome‘r against ihe respondent S$ate authenties t9 iaunch presecutien against ‘i‘ne resgondent No3 far which he is §iabie is be punished in the facts and c§rcumetances 0f the case. a0 (3 E Cost of the proceedings. g \ Any oiner re§§ef m the discretion of ibis Hon’bie Ceun.” The petitioner, tnus in substance. was seeking a direction respondents No. i 8: 2 to iauncn prosecution against ‘iO respondent No.3. 3} Pimjab am? Qiiiefs, reported in {2&05} 5 8cc 13$, wniie direc’zing the High Courts ie weed oui the petiiions which theugh iiiied as “pufeiic inieiesi iiiigations” afe in essence something eise, observed in para 5 as under ; “5. The scape of enteriaming a petition styieci as a pubiic interest iiiigation, iocus siancii of the eetitiener pariicuiariy in matters invoiving service of an empioyee has been examines by this Cour’c in varieus cases. The Court has to be satisfied a‘eoui (a) the oredeniiais oi the aooiicani; (b) the prime facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. T‘ne information shouid snow gravity and seriousness invoiveci. Court has to strike baianoe between two contiioting interests; (I) nobody should be aiioweoi to induige in wiid and reoiriess aiiegetions besrnironing the character oi others; and (ii) avoidance of pubiic T'ne Apex Court in the case of Gorpei Singn ix. State of m§schief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assaiL for obiique motives, justifiabie executive actions. in ch case, however, the Couri cannot afford €o be iiberai. ii has t be ex‘tz'emeiy carefu! t0 see that under the guise of edressing a pubiic grievance, ii does not encroach upon i‘ne sphere reserved i by the Constiiution to the executive an the deaiing wiih iosis and husybcdies mpor meddiesc‘me nieriopers impersonating as pubiic— sprited hciy men. They masquerade as crusaders of ustice. They preiend to act in the name of pro bono pubtico, though they have no interest of e pubtic or even of their wn to pro d egisiaiure. The Court has t0 act ruthiessiy whiie or i i j I petitioner. was sked t demonstrate from the petitioner’s a o pieao‘in‘gs in the writ petition as to what is the occupation l profession of the petitioner; how he i maintaining himseif and his s tamiiy; how and from where he has managed for the funds tor fiiing iis writ petition T our utter urprise, teamed counsei for t’ o s the petitioner miserabiy faild in showing any averment at ail in e the writ petition about the above—mentioned detaiis. in the absence of the above detaiis, the credentiais of the petitioner cannot be verified. 5) The Apex Court in the case of Genoa? Singh {supra} whiie highlighting the oniy permissibie course in such a situation observed in para 7 as under: th ing 4i During e course of hear, teamed counsel for the “As noted supra, the time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titied as pubiic interest su o r th o tec migaimns are in essence someihmg elseA it is shocking to noe thai couris are f§ooded with a iarge iwmber of so—caiied pubiic inieresi iitigations where 0n§y a minuscuie percentage can legitimaeiy be calied as pub§ic interest iitigaiions. Thaugh the parameters of pubiia intemst iiiigaiien have been indicad by ’i‘his Cour}: in a iarge number m’ cases, ye’i unmndfui of the real inien’iions and Qbjectivee, High Courts; are emer‘taining such petitiome and waetmg va$uab§e jud§cie§ time which as noied above; some: be oiherwise ué§§ized for diseosai 0f genuine cases. Though in Duryedhan Sam: (Did) v. Jifeedre Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273; this Crt heid thai in service meiters Pis shouid no: be entertained, ihe infiow of so—caiied PiLs invoiving service maiters coniinues unabated in the urts and siraneiy are entertained. The ieest the Hig Couris couid o is t trow ihem out on the basis of ihe said decision The other interestin aspect is that in the PiLs, officiai documents are bein annexed Wi‘ihoui even indicating as i0 how ine peiiiioner came to possess them. in one case; it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. it was stated that a packet was tying on the road and when out of curiosity the netitione opened it. he found copies oi the officiei documents. Whenever euch invoices pieas are taken to expiain possession, the Scan shouid do weii not oniy to dismiss the petitions but aiso to impose exempiary costs. it wouid be desirabie for the courts to fitter out the trivoious petitions and dismiss them with costs as atorestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions iiied with obiique motive do not have the approvai of the courts.“ i i i i i i t te i ou L co g h d 0 h g g r