K SUSINDRAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Concept of Public Interest Litigation, which has been an approved concept being an exception to the Rule of locus standi, was enunciated for the first time by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizudllabhai, 1976 3 SCC 832. It was formulated, at that time, only for the purpose of espousing the cause of general public and rendering justice to the public unfettered by the Rule of locus standi and that principle has been subsequently followed by the Supreme Court starting from the case in People s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982 3 SCC 235 and in series of cases. After the lapse of more than 25 years, the Apex Court was able to appreciate that this concept of Public Interest Litigation is being abused and misused very frequently and therefore the Apex Court has heavily come down against using the judicial forum for settling the scores between individuals in the name of redressal of public grievance.

(2.) It was, under those circumstances, in BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, 2002 2 SCC 333, the Supreme Court has limited the concept of Public Interest Litigation on the basis of bona fide, imposition of exemplary costs in cases of abuse and misuse as a deterrent effect and lastly the High Courts were directed to entertain Public Interest Litigations selectively and those principles have been followed continuously even as on date as it was held by the Hon'ble Justice Dalveer Bhandari in the latest judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 3 SCC 402, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines to be followed for the purpose of entertaining public interest litigations, which are as follows:

(3.) The present case is one such instance. In this case, the Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition, as a Public Interest Litigation, for a direction to the official Respondents for taking severe action against the 8th Respondent for allegedly running a School without recognition and without complying with the conditions imposed on him while granting approval on 29.09.2006. It is the case of the Petitioner that the 8th Respondent is running a School in Dindigul District and according to the Petitioner, the approval granted to the said School, upto the year 2008, has not been continued and without renewal of approval the 8th Respondent is running the School and more than 150 children are studying in the unauthorised School and the Educational Authorities are not taking any action. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the building in which the School is being run is in a highly dilapidated condition and in case of any eventuality, which may occur, the children who are admitted and studying in the School are the parties going to be affected and therefore, public interest requires that severe action should be taken against the 8th Respondent. Lastly, it is the case of the Petitioner that complaints have come from various quarters, including the residents of Sirumalai Pudhur and teachers association and other persons and in spite of the same the School is being run by the 8th Respondent, without approval, in a building which is in a bad condition and therefore it is the case of the Petitioner, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently, that this Court should extends its arms to see that public interest is protected.