Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd vs Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court disposing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 styled as a "Public Interest Litigation". The order gave certain directions and nullifying certain allotments of land made in favour of respondent No.5. In the writ petition action of the State Government of Bihar in granting appellant through its Director Prakash Jha land pieces in the Industrial areas in Patna, Hajipur, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Buxar. The writ petitioner alleged that the said Prakash Jha, Director of present appellant who was respondent No.5 in the writ petition was given land in return of services rendered by him to help the present Chief Minister to win last assembly elections. It was alleged that the action of the Government amounted to doling out valuable State property as largess at throw away prices for political considerations.

3. The writ petition was filed, and was claimed to be, in public interest. The respondent described himself as the Chief Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress, a recognized political party. His party contested the previous election in alliance with the party that was in power at that time. The alliance got worsted in the election and Congress party was returned as a poor fourth. Respondent no.5 is a private limited company; it is represented through a person who is well-known as a film-maker but who also takes part in electoral politics. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was stated that Prakash Jha had fought the 2004 Lok Sabha Election from the Bettiah Lok Sabha Constituency. It is further stated that in. the last assembly election held in October-November, 2005 though not a candidate himself, he addressed public meetings jointly with the present Chief Minister in various parts of the State. As both the petitioner and said Prakash Jha are political persons, it is not surprising that the pleadings are heavy with political invectives.

4. In the writ petition, it was stated that the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") has given large areas of land at various places to respondent no.5 at throwaway prices. It was further stated that allotments of land were made to respondent no.5 without issuing any notice, inviting competitive bids, and the land areas were granted to respondent no.5 at very cheap rates without following the established norms and procedure. According to him the market value of the said land plosts was much higher. For instance, in Patliputra Industrial Area, Patna one acre land was given to respondent no.5 for Rs.14,65,000.00. This piece of land should have fetched the State about rupees five crores if allotments were to be made on the basis of competitive bidding. It was also stated that in a blatant show of favour, respondent no.5 was also given the Authority's Office building along with the land in Patliputra Industrial Area. The favour was crowned by putting a very low value for the building. It was also alleged that the action of the State Government/Authority in granting to respondent no.5 land at different places was an act of malafide and called for institution of criminal cases against the concerned people and an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

5. The writ petition, in brief, made three allegations. (i) land plots were given to respondent no.5 at different places in the. State without issuing any notice, inviting bids and at value far below the market price of those land plots, (ii) the allotment -was made without following any norms or procedure and (iii) the action of the State Government caused heavy loss to the State; the action was based on political considerations and was, therefore, malafide.

22. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.

28. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say the parties shall be permitted to place material in support of their respective stand, in addition to those which are already on record and the High Court shall thereafter take a decision in the matter within four weeks. Further affidavits shall be filed with all relevant details/documents by the parties. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

29. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.