BIMAL PRASAD DAS Vs. BIJAYANANDA PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A public-spirited advocate of the Orissa High Court Bar Association has filed this application challenging the call given by the Chief Minister, Orissa as published in daily newspapers of the State to beat corrupt officials; of course, after taking permission from him. The case of the petitioner is that this public call violates the basic structure of our Constitution and is against the rule of law. He seeks an injunction in this regard.

(2.) . Learned Advocate-General contests the competence of the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this public interest litigation. According to him, the petitioner has taken up the cause of corrupt officers and does not possess any enforceable right, because of which he cannot be described as a "person aggrieved". It is submitted that as the present application is not meant for enforcing fundamental rights of those who have no adequate means of access to this Court and is not against violation of the Constitution or law resulting in substantial injury to public interest, we may not to hear the grievance of the petitioner. The final contention in this regard is that as the officers themselves who are aggrieved with the call of the Chief Minister have not approached this Court, the present public interest litigation by the petitioner on their behalf may not be entertained.

(3.) In this connection, we have been referred to certain renderings of the apex Court as well as of different High Courts. It was stated in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, that if a meddlesome interlopper or a busybody approaches the court in the garb of public interest litigation, the court should not hear him. The petitioner cannot at all be regarded as belonging to the aforesaid category of persons inasmuch as he, being a member of the Bar, is vitally interested in preservance of the rule of law and if the call given by the Chief Minister to beat corrupt officials encourages people to take law into their own hands, the petitioner would well be within his rights to approach this Court to see that the rule of law is maintained.