MAHESH MALIK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is said to be filed in public interest seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts of the case are that a Miscellaneous Petition No.284 of 2020 was filed challenging the order dtd. 28/6/2018 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa. The matter is still pending. That I.A.No.3520 of 2022 was filed by the writ petitioner herein seeking permission to intervene in the said petition on the ground that he is a social worker and is espousing the cause of poor citizens. The same was opposed by the petitioners therein on the ground that this is an effort to settle score at the instance of the proposed intervener himself, inasmuch as, a civil suit was filed by the proposed intervener against the present petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners submitted that the proposed intervener is not a necessary party for adjudication of the miscellaneous petition and moreover he has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has suppressed the fact of the civil dispute between him and the petitioners. On considering the contentions, the application for intervention was dismissed. Thereafter, this instant public interest litigation is filed on various grounds.

(3.) A question was asked to learned counsel for the petitioner that when the application for intervention has been rejected, how a backdoor method can be used by misusing the provisions of public interest in filing this petition. We do not find any satisfactory answer except a plea that he is espousing the cause of the public. If that were to be so, the Court which has dismissed the application would have necessarily considered the same. The Court has considered and found him as not being a necessary party. It is impermissible for the petitioner to route his grievances through a public interest litigation. Every such petition filed with a nomenclature of public interest is not necessarily a public interest litigation. The objection of the writ petitioners is that there is civil dispute between them and the petitioner herein. Hence, for all these grounds, we have no hesitation to say that the provisions of public interest litigation have been misused by the petitioner.