A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition (PIU No. 7128 of 2010 Shravan Kumar Twvari S/o late B.N. Th/vari, aged about 37 years, R/o. Tikrapara Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1 The State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Trahsport, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) 2 The Commissioner, Department of Transport, State of Chhattj^arh, Raipur(C.G.) 3 The Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Writ petition under Articte 226 ofthe Constitution of India Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addittonal Advocate General for the State/ respondents. ORDER (07th December, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. . Leamed counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Petltioner Shravan Kumar Th/vari daiming himself to be a social worker has filed this writ petition styled as 'Publte tnterest Litigation' forthe following reliefs: ^m^-Si^iS^s "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertafning to the deputation of employees in the Transport Department from the office of respondents. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pteased to direct the respondents and its authorities to take appropriate action in respect to Annexure P-1 and P-2 and stop the deputizlng the employees from other department in the Transport Department. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondentsand tts authorities to decide the representation dated 20.10.2010 Annexure P-3. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pteased to declare the inaotion on the part of the respondents are illegal and contrary to the Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively and further be directed to the respondents to work and reeruit the employees of Transport Department strtetly as per Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively forthwith by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari. 10.5 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased togrant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem flt and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthecase. 10.6 Costofthepetition." 3) In view of the reliefs claimed by e petitioner in this writ petition, Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, leamed counsel for the petttioner could not dispute that the petition essentially relates to a servioe matter. 4) The Apex Court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (200S) 5 S.C.C.-138, white warning the High Courts not to entertaln 'Publte Interest Litigations' in service matters, observed in para7 : "7. As noted supra, the time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titted as publte interest litigations are in essence something else. tt is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called publte interest litigations where only a minuscule percentage can legitlmately be called as pubiic interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest Iftigations have been indteated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuabte judteial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utjlized for disposal of genuine cases. Thouqh in Dtiryoelhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra KumarMishra (1998) 7 SCC-273. this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained. the inflow of so-catled PILs involvina service matters continues unabated in the courts and stranaelv are entertained. The least the Hiah Courte could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indteating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was notteed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copjes of the offteial documents. Whenever such frivolous pteas are taken to explain possession, the '^:^^«-"- Court should dowell not only to dismiss the petitlons but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desiraNe for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions fited with oblique motlve do not have the approval of the courts." 5) In view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court tn the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (Supra), present writ petltion relating to servtee matter cannot be entertained as 'Public Interest Litigation'. 6) The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu