Case: Dr. M. Furquan Vs. Jet Airways India Limited Through Its Chairman &amp; Others

overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas, which are reserved, to the executive and the legislature by the Constitution. It is a fascinating exercise for the court to deal with public interest litigation because it is new jurisprudence, which the court is evolving, a jurisprudence that demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines which will change the complexion of the law and which were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are beginning to be born. The courts while exercising jurisdiction and deciding public interest litigation have to take great care, primarily for the reason that this wide jurisdiction should not become a source of abuse of process of law by a disgruntled litigant. The courts have also held that no efforts should be spared in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending its long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed. It has to be a genuine litigation, unmotivated and imposes an obligation upon a litigant to come to the court with true facts and clean hands. Public interest litigations result in taking large courts time, which could not be used by the court for the benefit of common litigant. Thus it is more imperative that petitions, which are bona fide and further the public cause alone should be entertained in this category. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs State of W.B, 2004(3) SCC 349 the Supreme Court has held that the court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests, (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In this very judgment the Court further enunciated that the principles of credentials of the applicant; prima facie correctness and nature of information given by him and also that the information is not vague and indefinite, are the criteria, which the litigant should satisfy. The scope and gravity of the grievance is another relevant consideration for the court to entertain such litigations. If these ingredients are lacking, the Supreme Court further said that the courts should not entertain such public interest litigations. Similar view was also taken in the case of Gurpal Singh vs State of Punjab and ors, 2005(5) SCC 136. It is also true that a petition involving the question of public interest must be directly relatable to actual interest of the public at large, which has to be a substantial interest. It is not the title of the petition, which would satisfy the ingredients of public interest litigation, but it is the substance of the petition, which would be the determinative factor. The documents relied upon by the petitioner in this petition are similar which were relied upon by him in PIL No. 5 of 2006. Thereafter commonly known facts, which a keen public interest oriented person like the petitioner is expected to know, are published and were even made available in the internet. When called upon by the authorities to produce documents or give details of his suspicion, all that the petitioner did was to tender a copy of the secret letter dated 12th December 2001. In the press report annexed by the petitioner, it was stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs had sought inputs from different agencies. It was thereafter that the Ministry issued the no objection and even at the floor of the House of Loksabha a statement was made. Even the Government of United States of America had given clearance to the respondent company as per the communication dated 14th October 2006. All these events are prior to the institution of the present petition and the petitioner, for reason best known to him, failed to disclose an of them in the writ petition. In our opinion, it was expected of the petitioner to give available facts before raising issues of such serious nature relating to national security, the alleged supply of funds by the underworld, its effect on the economy of the country and investigation by CBI into the links of the respondent company to the underworld. In the writ petition the petitioner has made one prayer alone that the CBI should be directed to investigate the matter forthwith. What matter needs to be investigated in face of the permission granted by the different authorities, including the Ministry of Home Affairs and the inputs by the investigating agencies. The public interest litigation cannot be extended to create what in the opinion of the authority does 0265 not exist. We are of the considered view that the petitioner has not come to the court satisfying the basic ingredients of equity and essentials stated in the dictum of the Supreme Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Pandeys case (supra). In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner except vague denials, nothing of substance has been stated in relation to the permission granted by US Department of Transportation. It is averred that he is not aware of such fact. This attitude of the petitioner is not in conformity with the requirements of law of pleading, particularly when the petitioner has chosen to make serious allegations against respondent No.1. Accepted precepts of law of pleading contemplate definite efforts on the part of the petitioner and to appropriately admit or deny the averments made in the reply affidavits. None of the authorities have, in their affidavits, even vaguely supported the version of the petitioner. On the contrary there are definite decisions of the competent authorities for granting no objection to the respondent company. We see no reason to issue any directions as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The courts while exercising jurisdiction and deciding public interest litigation have to take great care, primarily for the reason that this wide jurisdiction should not become a source of abuse of process of law by a disgruntled litigant. The courts have also held that no efforts should be spared in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending its long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed. It has to be a genuine litigation, unmotivated and imposes an obligation upon a litigant to come to the court with true facts and clean hands. Public interest litigations result in taking large courts time, which could not be used by the court for the benefit of common litigant. Thus it is more imperative that petitions, which are bona fide and further the public cause alone should be entertained in this category. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs State of W.B, 2004(3) SCC 349 the Supreme Court has held that the court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests, (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In this very judgment the Court further enunciated that the principles of credentials of the applicant; prima facie correctness and nature of information given by him and also that the information is not vague and indefinite, are the criteria, which the litigant should satisfy. The scope and gravity of the grievance is another relevant consideration for the court to entertain such litigations. If these ingredients are lacking, the Supreme Court further said that the courts should not entertain such public interest litigations. Similar view was also taken in the case of Gurpal Singh vs State of Punjab and ors, 2005(5) SCC 136. It is also true that a petition involving the question of public interest must be directly relatable to actual interest of the public at large, which has to be a substantial interest. It is not the title of the petition, which would satisfy the ingredients of public interest litigation, but it is the substance of the petition, which would be the determinative factor. The documents relied upon by the petitioner in this petition are similar which were relied upon by him in PIL No. 5 of 2006. Thereafter commonly known facts, which a keen public interest oriented person like the petitioner is expected to know, are published and were even made available in the internet. When called upon by the authorities to produce documents or give details of his suspicion, all that the petitioner did was to tender a copy of the secret letter dated 12th December 2001. In the press report annexed by the petitioner, it was stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs had sought inputs from different agencies. It was thereafter that the Ministry issued the no objection and even at the floor of the House of Loksabha a statement was made. Even the Government of United States of America had given clearance to the respondent company as per the communication dated 14th October 2006. All these events are prior to the institution of the present petition and the petitioner, for reason best known to him, failed to disclose an of them in the writ petition. In our opinion, it was expected of the petitioner to give available facts before raising issues of such serious nature relating to national security, the alleged supply of funds by the underworld, its effect on the economy of the country and investigation by CBI into the links of the respondent company to the underworld. In the writ petition the petitioner has made one prayer alone that the CBI should be directed to investigate the matter forthwith. What matter needs to be investigated in face of the permission granted by the different authorities, including the Ministry of Home Affairs and the inputs by the investigating agencies. The public interest litigation cannot be extended to create what in the opinion of the authority does 0265 not exist. We are of the considered view that the petitioner has not come to the court satisfying the basic ingredients of equity and essentials stated in the dictum of the Supreme Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Pandeys case (supra). In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner except vague denials, nothing of substance has been stated in relation to the permission granted by US Department of Transportation. It is averred that he is not aware of such fact. This attitude of the petitioner is not in conformity with the requirements of law of pleading, particularly when the petitioner has chosen to make serious allegations against respondent No.1. Accepted precepts of law of pleading contemplate definite efforts on the part of the petitioner and to appropriately admit or deny the averments made in the reply affidavits. None of the authorities have, in their affidavits, even vaguely supported the version of the petitioner. On the contrary there are definite decisions of the competent authorities for granting no objection to the respondent company. We see no reason to issue any directions as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.