NILOO RANJAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks, (i) a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the admission process conducted by the respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad (UP); (ii) a direction for appointment of a Committee to supervise the admission process conducted by all private medical colleges; (iii) de-recognition of the respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College as a medical institute providing medical education; and, (iv) direction to the respondent no.2 Medical Council of India to strike off the name of the respondent no.5 Renuka Gautam from the medical register.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be working in the field of investigative journalism, presently working with Jansatta as Senior Special Correspondent. Though the petition purports to raise the issue of private medical colleges admitting students who are not eligible for admission to the MBBS course but a reading of the petition leaves no manner of doubt that the same is directed primarily against the respondent no.4 Santosh Medical College and respondent no.5 Ms. Renuka Gautam. Such petition filed in public interest and targeted at a particular person always invites suspicion. The Supreme Court in Neetu Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 10 SCC 614 held that when a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the Court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other malafide object. It was further held that the High Court ought not to have entertained such a petition. The dicta in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal, 2004 3 SCC 349 that PIL 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 and ugly private malice, vested interest and / or publicity seeking is not lurking; it should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury was reiterated.

(3.) We have asked the counsel for the petitioner as to what was the reason for the petitioner to investigate the respondents no.4&5 in particular. No document showing the process of investigation has been filed along with the petition. No specific averment against any other college or any wrongful admission made is found in the petition.