HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR F. f<- 3 77 CORAM : Hon'ble Shri JagdishBhalla.Ag. CJ. & Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Writ Petition No.3973 of 2005 JiUDGMENT FOR CONSID'ERATION »^ ^ngCbirf3u^e HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. Satish K. Agnihotri POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUbGMENT^/l 2/2007 '6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D1VISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRi JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. C, HON'BLE SHR! SATESH K. AGNIHOTRi, J. J. & ' ^ Writ Petition No. 3973 of 2003 (Pubiic interest Litiaation) Petitioners 4. ResDpndents: Om Shanti Samiti Sheorinaravan an association/society reglstered under the Chhattisgarh (M.P.) Societies Registrikaran Adhsnfyam, 1973 vide registration no. 743 through its President/Secretarv Subhash Chandra kesharwani, aged about47 years S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Kesharwani R/o Sheorinarayan District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Nagarik Sangharsh Morcha, Through : Conversor Rajesh Tiwari S/o Late Kumar Prasad Tiwari aged about 38 years, PJo Sadar Bazar Sheorinarayan, Districi Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) Math Bachao Samiti, Through President Baiaram Kesharwani S/o iate Tiharu Ram Kesharwni, aged about 64 years, R/o Bombay Market, Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) Merchant Chamber of commerce, Through Vice President, Vlrendra Kumar Agrawal S/o. Chhedi Lal Agravi/al, aged about 41 years R/o Bombay Market, Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Chhattlsgarh, Through the Chief Secretary, D.K.S. Bhav/an, Mantraiaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Cotlector, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Registrar of Public Trusts (coliector) District - Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) 4. Sub Divisionai Officer, P.Q. Janigir, District Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) 5. Shri Sheorinarayan Math Mandir Nyas Post Sheorinarayan District Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) through the managing Trustee Ram Sundar Das. Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India Present: Shri Prashant Mishra, counsei for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri H.B. Agrawai, Senior Advocate with IVIs. Sangeeta Mishra, counsel for respondent No.5. :'1 tl 3i/' JUDGMENT (Delivered on _ December, 2007) The foltowing Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hon'bte Jagdish Bhalla, Ag. C.J. : This Public interest Litigation has been filed inter alia on the grounds of mismanagement, financial bungling and misuse of the properties of the famous shrine of Sheorinarayan Temple, Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa by Shri Sheorinarayan Math Mandir Nyas - respondent No.5, a TrusS under the Madhya Pradesh Pubtic Trust Act, 1960, coriSSituted by the order of the District Judge, Raipurdated 01.10.1986, passed in MJ.C. No.17/1960. Public interest Litigation Is a weapon which has to be used with great care and cireumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely carefu! to see behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. !t is to 38^ be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of iaw for deiiverlng social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of pubiic interest iitigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. it shouid be aimed at redressal of genuine public vyrong or pub!ic injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on persona! vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the pubtic, who approaches the court is acting bonafide and not for personai gain or private motive or poiitical motivatlon or other oblique consideration. The court must not ailow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons wlth vested interest induige in ihe pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies desen/e to be thrown out by rejection at the threshoid, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an imoortant field in the administration of law should not be "pubiicity interest litigation" or "politics interest iitigation" or for moving the courts with obiique motive for persona! gains. it shouid be properly regulated and shoutd be averted. It should not be aiiowed to become a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as wei!. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant or poke one's nose into for a probe. it cannot a!so be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personai causes or satisfy his or thelr JS personal grudge and enmity. Courts ofjustice should not be aiiovi/ed to be poiiuted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest iitigation wi!l alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out vioiation of fundamenta! rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personat gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. The purpose of Pubiic Interest Litigation is to vvipe out tears of the poor and needy, suffering from vioiation of their fundamental rights and not for gaining any profit or for oblique considerations. IS was an innovation essentially fo safeguard and protect the human rights of those Deoole who were unable to protect them. It is alwavs incumbent upon a citizen who rushes the Court through Public Interest Litigation to do specific home work and research in respect of the subject on which he approaches the Court in stead of making baid ailegations. The petitioners who are claiming to be public spirited persons, socially conscious and of reiigious mind and sincereiy beiieve in preservation of Rule of law, reside at Sheorinarayan for last 4-5 decades. (In stead of indicating that the members of the petitioners - oraanizations are local residents of Sheorinarayan, it has been indicated that the petitioners are iocal residents). It has been further indicated that a large number of complains were being made against the Math which resulted into removal of Mahant and his associates by an order of the Registrar ( Ex-Offlcio Collector, Biiaspur) with a view to get an impartia! Board of Trustees. tn such circumstances, on an application, the leamed District Judge, Raipur, by an order dated 01.10.1986 approved a scheme for the welfare and development of ^- n ?5P, ^i' i;i f^o. Sheorinarayan temple by constituting a Trust under Section 26 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1960. The object of the said religious and charitable Trust is to promote Hindu Religion and dignified up-keep of Shri Sheorinarayan tempte and other tempies attached to the Sheorinarayan Math according to the traditlons of Ramanand Sampradaya. It was further provided that Raje Shri Mahant Vaishnav Das, Guru Shri Bajrang Das, existing MahanS and Managing Trustee of Sheorinarayan Math were ailowed to be Mahant and Managing Trustee of the said Math and the Mahant and his successors shall have the right to nominate and appoint his successor in accordance with the tenets, practice and customs of Ramanandl Vaishnav Sampradaya. It was further provided that the Mahant and Sarvarakar may be removed from his office by a majority decision of the Board of Trustees if ; (a) he marries, (b) he ceases to belong to Ramanandi Sampradaya ; (c) he is convicted by a Competent Court of any offence involving moral turpltude. it was aiso provided that if the Mahant dies wlthout nominating his successor or if he is removed from his office by the Board of trustees, the Board shall request the Mahants of the neighbouring IVlaths of Ramanandi Sampradaya to coitect together and to suggest an appropriate person to be appointed as Mahant. On receipt of the suggestion, the Board may appoint such person to be the Mahant and Sarvarkar of the Sheorinarayan Math and Temple and thereafter he shall not only ho!d the office of the Math but shall also have all the rights and liabilitles in accordance with thls scheme. As far as the Droperties are concerned it was indicated that a!! the properties are absoluteiy vested in the deity of Sheorinarayan tempie. The !earned District Judge further provided for constitution of 3 S 3 the Board appointing nine persons including Mahant as trustees for the efRcient management ofthe Math. According to the petitioners, same Mahant was appolnted as the Managing Trustee, against whom the comptaints indicated hereinabove were filed. The conduct of the sa'd Mahant has not onty been castigated in judicial proceedings, but he was also held accused of marrying a widow against the tenets and practice of such Mahantship under Ramanandi Sampradaya. There are ailegations against the members of the Bar who were appearing for either side including the Government Counsel and also the Coliector as Registrar of the Trust that they a!l are the parties to the evl! designs of the said Mahant by according approval to the scheme tailored by him, but ateo became Trustees of the Board. it has also been alleged that legal proceedings were successfully got poliuted despite the honest efforts of the peopte and the devotees. It has been further aileged that 100 acres of !and belonging to the Trust has been so!d out for personal gains and all immoral and illegal works are being done under the garb of the Trust. The ro!e of the State Officials has also been heavily criticized in this petition to the extent that no care has been taken to save the people of Sheorinarayan. From the perusal of the wrif petition, we find that there is a judgment of First Appeal referred in She petition though not brought to our notice by the Searned counsei for the petltioners. However, we find that "aripus allegations have been made aaainst atl those who have been aopointed as Chisf Trustee, Trustees, Government Officials, except the Collector, Biiaspur and in the process had prayed for quashing of th.e appointment of the Board of Trustees dated 01.10.1986 and the order dated 01.10.1986 passed by the 384 District Judge, Raipur. it has been further prayed that strictures be passed against the Government Officiais who are involved in the misdeed of the Trust and appoint a Impartial Commission/ Committee of individuals or retired Senior Bureaucrats including Judges to submit a report to the Court for further consideration and also a direction to the State to considerthe process to bring such legislation in the line of the shrines at Thirupathi Thirumangla Devasthanam, Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple at Ujjain and Mata Valshno Devi, Jammu. A direction has aiso been prayed for to be issued to the State Government to make a Master Pian of Sheorinarayan for due implementation and to notify the name Sheorinarayan in place of Bhogahapara and Mahant Para. Apart from the prayers mentioned hereinabove, the petitioners have a!so made some other prayers, but they have not been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument. Learned counse! for the petitioners submits that in the iight of what has been indicated above, the writ petition be altowed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners could not explain the laches in fiiing the writ petition against the order dated 01.10.1986 of the District Judge, Raipur and further that why the appropriate remedy was not availed chalienging the order of the District Judge, Raipur. Leamed counsel for the petitioners has further failed to substantiate how there is mismanagement, financia! bungting, misuse of the properties of the shrine etc. We find that civil suits i.e. Civi! Suit Nos. 81-A/2005, 7-A/2003, 172-A/2002, 342-A/2002 and 5-A/99 are still pending on behaif of the petitioners - organizations and others in the Civil Court. In such 386 were? not in a position to protect thei'r own interests. Public interest titigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. "litigation In the interest ofthe public". 78. While PIL initiafiy was jnvoked mostiy in cases connected with the relief to the peopie and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was vio'ation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarised the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exereised in the foliowing words: "P!L may, therefore, be described as satisfylng one or more of the foliowing parameters. These are not exciusive but mereiy descriptive: — Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared wideiy by a largs number of people (bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, prison inmates). Where the affected oersons beiong to the disadvantaged sectlons of society (women, chiidren, bonded labour, unorganised labour etc.). — Where judida! law making is necessary to avoid expioitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the chiidren ofthe prostitutes). — Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (indepena'ence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums). — Where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and ^^®*^ -^ ,<?y~^ ^"^ S ^SviSs^f^Vt',. i?T s s "°"'"it 1 "i>... ^^Ji'./ ^sy 38d .'•%•' cireumstances, we find that under the garb of Public Interest Litigation the petitioners are espousing the cause of its members' personal interest litigation. Hon'ble Apex Court time and agaln has criticized such an action. In this context, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others - (1992) 4 SCC -305 has observed as under: " 109. lt is thus clear that oniy a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the procesding of P!L will aione have a iocus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for persona! gain or private profit or politicai motive or any oblique consideration. Similariy, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievances, deserves rejection at threshold." The Hon'bte Apex Court in the matter of Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Unlon of India - (2002) 2 SCC -333 has observed as under: 77. Public interest litigation, or P!L as it is more commonly known, entered the indian judicia! process in 1970. It wiil not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamentai and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PiL was not meant to be adversarial In nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who 10 387 jeopardize people's right to natural resources such as air or water." On the other hand, learned Senior Counse! appearing for the respondent No.5 vehementiy opposes the submissions advanced by tearned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners in the garb of public interest litigation has fiied this petition which purely a personal or private interest litigation for some vested interest ;,n removing the present trustees and management to save their own skin. He Turther submits that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they are already facing civil suits in the Court of Civit Judge, Ctass-Si, Janjgir. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the decision of. Hon'bie Apex Court in the matter of R & M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigliance Group & others (2005) 3 SCC - 91, relevant portion of which has been mentioned in para 4 of his appiication for dismissing the writ petition which is being adumbrated hereunder for readv reference : "4. That now the law is very dear in the matter of Public Interest Litigation, as he!d by Their Lordship's reported in 2005(3) S.C.C. Page 91, betv/een R & M Trust versus Koramangaia Residents Vigilance Group and others, here also lease given before 10 years was sought to be disturbed and referring articies 226 and 32 of ConstituSion of India it is he!d that maintainabiiity and locus standi is a very relevant factor. The Hon'bie Court aiso observed that courts shou'id entertain P.i.L. in very rare cases where public at large stand to suffer, th's lurisdiction cannof be aliowed to be invoked for the purpose of serving private ends and professional rivalry. Likewise delay was aiso taken as ground for dismissat of P.I.L.. In th's case aiso the trust has been created v'de order dated 1-10-1986, copy of which Is filed as 11 <<t»t«T 388 Annexure G, is functioning continuously and without interruption, smoothly and with out comptaint, compiaint if anycan be made to the Registrar, Public Trust, as per provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act. For this some compiaint are being examined for which the matter is pending before First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur andaccording to section 26 & 27 ofth6 M.P. Public Trust Act, the matter is being examined in detaii by him for which the connected civil revisions are pending here to challenge the legality and validity oftheorders passed in that case. The Annexure G was never challenged any where from the year 1986, therefore it cannot be challenged in this writ petition because it beCame final and binding on all, therefore aiso the petition is liable to be dismissed becauseitwas subject matter of appeat, for which writ jurisdiction is not available, so far as the remova! of trustee and appointing new trustee in place of dead trustee is concerned, the power is vested to Registrar, Public Trustonly, therefore they can go to him, hence the petition is a!so liabie to be dismissed on the ground 6f availability of alternative remedy. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion tligt the petition Is neither maintainable as pubiic interest litigation nor ahy interference is warranted on merit. Accordingly, the writ Detltion is dismissed. -a- subbu Sd/- ActingChiefJustice '\ £) Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge