W.P.(Crtl.)No.537-2009 Page No.1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (Crl) No. 537 of 2009 & Crl. M.A. No.4660/2009 R.K. YADAV ……Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Tamta and Ms. Nisha Narayan, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel and Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL % O R D E R 13.05.2009 1. This writ petition has been filed as a “Public Interest Litigation”. The petitioner claims to be a former officer of Research and Analysis Wing (hereinafter referred to as „RAW‟) where he led a 10-days pen down strike in 1980 and was ultimately dismissed from service. It is the case of the petitioner that he is seeking to bring to the notice of the Court the illegal attempts of the respondents of aborting the legal system and permitting a case to die an unnatural death to facilitate the exoneration of 50 officers of RAW, who were in contact with one Rabinder Singh, Joint Secretary handling South- East Asia in the RAW. The petitioner has also sought a direction for initiation of criminal proceedings against 19 officers who were allegedly indicted by an investigating team. It is also averred that the RAW had deliberately not included this information/details in the complaint filed through CBI before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, W.P.(Crtl.)No.537-2009 Page No.2 of 3 Delhi. It is stated in the petition that Rabinder Singh with the help of CIA managed to escape to USA on a fictitious passport. It is the case of the petitioner that the complaint filed has been deliberately limited and restricted to the extent that Rabinder Singh was passing secret sensitive information and had managed to flee India and hence, he should be tried in accordance with law. As per the petitioner, there were clear attempts to protect and shield the officers of RAW who were either in touch with the said Rabinder Singh or had connived with him. The petitioner has inter alia prayed for directing an investigation by CBI as also investigation into the role of the officers of RAW in the said matter. 2. It is the petitioner‟s own case that the matter is pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. This is not a matter which persuades us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially when a competent court is seized of the matter. It has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 that a public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. The court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or other oblique consideration. It was also held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.N. W.P.(Crtl.)No.537-2009 Page No.3 of 3 Godavarman vs. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 28 that public interest litigation should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. 3. In our considered opinion, the petitioner has been unable to make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and also what is important is that a competent court is seized of the matter and is dealing with the same. The writ petition is dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of as well. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 13, 2009 sb