1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5251/2010 Ram Singh vs Union of India & Ors. Date of Order: 6th Dec., 2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. SP Singh, for the petitioner. <><><> By the court (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tatia): Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petitioner submitted this writ petition not as public interest litigation and when learned Single judge on 26th May, 2010 asked the petitioner to explain the locus standi to challenge the order passed in disciplinary matter against the private respondents then on 21st July, 2010, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Chairman, Railway Board Vs. Chandrima Das reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465 and Bimal Prasad Das Vs. Bijayananda Patnaik reported in AIR 1992 Orisa 10 and submitted before the learned Single Judge that since the delinquent official is involved in the serious corrupt practice and it is in public interest that this Court should take cognizance of this and he intends to argue this case as public interest litigation. Since the PIL could have been heard only by Division Bench, therefore, learned Single Judge without deciding issue whether litigation involves public interest or not, passed the 2 order to place the matter before the Division Bench. Hence, it has come before the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioner was again asked to show what is the locus standi of the petitioner as well as how the public interest is involved in view of the facts alleged in the writ petition where he has picked up 4 persons out of several persons employed in the Postal Department of the Government of India against whom according to the petitioner himself, some disciplinary action was taken, but according to him, adequate punishment was not awarded. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that there were allegation of embezzlement against the respondent no.5 N.D. Khan, but when he was asked to show any document wherein there is allegation of embezzlement, he submitted that the respondent no.5 gave some wrong promotions. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not show any allegation against the respondents nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the facts mentioned in the writ petition supported by any cogent evidence and more pertinent is that in the grounds only reasons have been given for taking action against the respondent no.5 N.D. Khan. After going through the facts as alleged in the writ petition and the grounds taken by the petitioner, we are of the view that there appears to be some personal grudge of petitioner against the private respondents and to ventilate 3 his grievances against the private respondents this writ petition has been initially submitted as personal interest litigation and finding difficulty in pursuing the petition, he is seeking conversion of this petition to public interest litigation with oblique motive. The petition appears to be absolutely frivolous and abuse of process of court. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. [ARUN MISHRA],CJ. cpgoyal/-