P.Seshadri vs S.Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors

3. The aforesaid order has been passed in a writ petition styled as a public interest litigation by S. Mangati Gopal Reddy (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No.1"). Respondent No. 1 claims to be an agriculturist and a staunch devotee of Lord Venkateswara since his childhood. In Paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, respondent No.1, in order to establish his locus standi to file the public interest litigation stated as under:-

According to respondent No.1, since the enactment of the Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions Act, 1989, the management and administration vests in the Board called "TTD Board" constituted under Section 96 of the aforesaid Act.

6. According to respondent No.1, the appellant retired on 31st July, 2006. Since then, he has been given five years extension in the Temple. According to the respondent, the services of the appellant have been extended for ulterior motives. Respondent makes a grievance that the services of the appellant have been extended as if there is no other suitable person in the Temple or elsewhere to perform the duties of the appellant. The respondent further alleges that the services of the appellant were extended on a number of occasions, vide order, viz; No. Roc No. BG/10949/2006 dated 31st July, 2006 for a period of two years, Roc No. BG/10949/2007 dated 5th August 2008, for a period of two years from 2nd August, 2007 to 1st August, 2009 and Roc No. P1/308/Sri TT/ml/2009 dated 1st August, 2009 for a further period of two years i.e. from 2nd August, 2009 to 1st August, 2011.

8. The writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 9th November, 2009. Whilst issuing notice in the writ petition, the High Court made an interim order which was as follows:-

Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the 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 deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs."

The facts placed on record in the present proceeding would clearly indicate that the appellant has not come to Court with clean hands. He has failed to establish his credential for moving the writ petition as public interest litigation. In our opinion, the High Court has failed to examine the matter in its correct perspective.

In view of the above, we are unable to accept that the petitioner is the actual moving spirit behind the writ petition.

The order passed by the High Court does not satisfy the bare minimum requirements as indicated above. In view of the above, we have no option but to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.

28. Before parting, we may notice here that under the Resolution No. 178 dated 28th July, 2007 services of the appellant have been extended upto 1st August, 2011. We are informed by Mr. Narsimha that his services were discontinued immediately upon the judgment having been passed by the High Court on 28th April, 2010. Consequently, the appellant has been denied the full benefit under the Resolution and the Order dated 1st August, 2009. Since the aforesaid benefit has been denied to the appellant without any fault on his part, we direct the Board to consider whether the appellant ought to be granted further extension to compensate for the loss of service since 28th April, 2010.

29.With these observations, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

March 29, 2011.