K PRABHAKAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is of widest possible amplitude. Public Interest Litigation, the seeds of which were sown in United States more than a century ago has had its due impact in Indian jurisprudence as well, though, however much later and this phenomenon from time to time has had judicial recognition throughout the country and consequently a step forward to sub-serve the ends of justice. The concept of justice ought to be the predominant factor in judicial approach and the law courts in order to do so have been dealing with matters in a manner and in accordance with the doctrine of natural justice to achieve this end. The usual adversorial litigation is a part of our judicial system but the advent of this phenomenon has been received with wide acclamation throughout the country and it is on this count that the Supreme Court right from the beginning however has sounded a caution to the effect that it may not be the act of a busy body or to satisfy individualistic ego or other egoistic social complication. Individual disputes ought not to gain momentum in a Court of law under the coverage of public interest litigation and attempts to that effect ought always to be decided by the law courts and as a matter of fact there should be a positive discouragement to such an individualistic litigation in the garb of a public interest litigation and it is only in the clearest of cases of general affectation of right of the community at large or a wide variety of cross-section of people, the law court would extend its assistance, so as to avoid any social or general mischief having due regard to the concept of justice. The Supreme Court recently in the case of S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deva Gowda, AIR 1997 SC 272 observed; ".... It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the Court that he does not rush to Court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third parry rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the Court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the Court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filing a series of petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as concluding the point. We say this because when we draw the attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court, he brushed them aside without so much as showing willingness to deal with them and without giving them a second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by passage of time and challenged their correctness on the specious plea that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to the correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to considered decisions of this Court even by a person well-versed in law would not be countenanced. Instead, as pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no bearing on the question, like the decisions on cow slaughter cases, freedom of speech and expression, uniform civil code, etc., we need say no more except to point out that indiscriminate use of this important lever of public interest litigation would blunt the lever itself.''

(2.) It is therefore required that the law Court should use proper circumspection before entertaining an application under Article 226 or passing orders thereon on the plea of a general affectation of the public at large.

(3.) Having discussed the law on the subject, let us now at this juncture advert to the factual aspect briefly. The petitioner, questioned the proceedings dated 13-12-1994 passed by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). The 3rd respondent being one Smt. Kunwar Rani, aged about 70 years, R/o. H.No. 6-3-1216/2, Begumpet, Hyderabad, filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The 2nd respondent being the competent authority within the meaning of the Act by an order dated 7-8-1991 declared the 3rd respondent (Smt. Kunwar Rani) a surplus land-holder to the extent of 14920 Sq.Mtrs. Be noted that in the declaration filed by the 3rd respondent it has been stated that she is having four (4) acres of land at Begumpet and a residential double storeyed building having a covered area of 2500 sq.yds. at the premises in question as noted above. She has also claimed exemption, under Section 19 of the Act, for use of the land as play-ground for school children. Being aggrieved by the order of the competent authority in regard to surplus land, the 3rd respondent, however, preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed on 28-1-1994. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed in this Court and this Court upon consideration of the contextual facts disposed of the same by ajudgment dated 31-10-1994 and remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry before the appropriate authority. The 2nd respondent dealt with the matter on remand from the High Court, but declared the 3rd respondent as a non-surplus holder. It is this order which is under challenge by the writ petitioner as and by way of a public interest litigation.