D REDYA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT BUILDING SAIFABAD HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present day judicial system, public interest Litigation is a significant step. On the wake of twenty first century, a rigid insistence on the strict rules pertaining to the concept of focus stands cannot be had, more so, by reason of the changing structure of the society. Law-Courts exist for the society and in the event Law-Courts fall short of the expectation of the people, the Law-Courts would be losing their efficacy resulting in a total failure of the constitutional machinery. Judiciary has a pivotal role to play and in the event the justice administration system fails, the democratic polity, as enshrined in the Constitution would also come to an end and the resultant effect would be a social catastrophe.

(2.) The concept of locus stand however through the years has had a steady refinement by the Law-Courts and this concept provided the Law-Courts with much greater responsibility for rendering the justice administration system available to the disadvantaged section of the Society. Incidentally, however, this new phenomenon has also over-loaded the Law-Courts rendering ordinary litigants to wait for a further period of time. Law's delay in the Indian Sub-Continent is not unknown. And, this additional burden and responsibility on to the Law-Courts will render the situation more awesome. As such, in the fitness of things, the Law-Courts, though normally shall be entertaining these litigations, ought to exercise great care and caution in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under this new phenomenon in our jurisprudential system. Justice ought to be made available to the one who cannot afford the luxury of litigation and in the event an organisation guided by social benefit or a public spirited individual approaches the Court for and on behalf of a section of the people by reason of affection of right, there ought not to be any disinclination on the part of the Law-Courts to accept, provided of course, following the caution exercised by Justice Bhagwati in S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, that it ought not to be the act of a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper but who has sufficient interest in the proceeding. In this context, reference may also be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, (1986) 2 SCC 68 wherein it has been stated in no uncertain terms that the effect of a public interest litigation should go beyond the sphere of the parties present in the proceedings so as to prevent this ' 'technique'' from being used as an instrument of coercion, blackmail or for other oblique motive. Extreme care and caution ought to be there in the matter of entertaining a petition. It ought not to be used for private gain or individual motive but for general redress to the public at large. The observations of this Court in the case of B. Kistaiah v. Government of India, 1998 (5) ALD 135 = 1998 (4) ALT 738 at 767-768 also seem to be very apposite in the context. This Court observed:

(3.) It is on this backdrop that the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as filed by the petitioner, shall have to be considered and it would be convenient, therefore, to advert to the factual aspects of the matter under consideration at this juncture. Before so doing, however, be it placed on record that this writ petition, in the normal course, was filed before a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge, upon hearing the matter, was pleased to grant an order of status quo and after some deliberations thought it fit to reserve the judgment in the matter. But subsequently the matter, however, was not dealt with in extensor and it was referred to a larger Bench recording in the order of reference that important questions are involved and the matter ought to be dealt with by a larger Bench. Hence the petition is placed before this Bench for being dealt with appropriately.