UMEDSINH P. CHAVDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to be a social worker has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a "social worker". The affidavit in support of the petition states that the contents of the petition are true to the knowledge and belief of the petitioner. The petition has been filed without the petitioner having any technical knowledge on the subject. The source of his assertions has not been substantiated. No justification or explanation is forthcoming during the submissions of Mr S P Singh, learned Senior Counsel on why two specific brands in particular are chosen to be the target of the proceedings. The petition has been filed for extraneous reasons. The invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 is an abuse of the process.

(3.) Having heard Mr S P Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 is not a bona fide recourse to the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation. Consequently, besides dismissing the petition an order directing the imposition of exemplary costs is necessary.