{"id":642,"date":"2020-04-23T10:30:07","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=642"},"modified":"2021-01-17T04:03:25","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T04:03:25","slug":"the-courts-before-entertaining-the-pil-should-ensure-that-the-pil-is-aimed-at-redress-of-genuine-public-harm-or-public-injury","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/the-courts-before-entertaining-the-pil-should-ensure-that-the-pil-is-aimed-at-redress-of-genuine-public-harm-or-public-injury\/","title":{"rendered":"The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redress of genuine public harm or public injury."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 25th February 2020  <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case:\nState of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (Civil appeal no. 1134 \u2013\n1135 of 2002)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts\nof the case: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Appeals have been filed by the State of\nUttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) against the orders dated 12.7.2001 and 1.8.2001\npassed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in\nCivil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 689 (M\/B) of 2001.<\/li>
  2. The appointment of L. P. Nathani was\nchallenged before the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation on the ground\nthat he could not hold the august Office of the Advocate General of Uttarakhand\nin view of Article 165 read with Article 217 of the Constitution. According to\nthe respondent, Mr. Nathani was ineligible to be appointed as the Advocate\nGeneral because he had attained the age of 62 years much before he was\nappointed as the Advocate General. The High Court entertained the petition and\ndirected the State Government to take decision on the issue raised within 15\ndays and apprise the same to the High Court.<\/li>
  3. The State of Uttaranchal preferred special\nleave petitions before Supreme Court on 6.8.2001. Supreme Court vide order\ndated 9.8.2001 stayed the operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court.\nThereafter on 11.2.2002, Supreme Court granted leave and directed that the stay\nalready granted shall continue.<\/li>
  4. Despite the service of notice, the\nrespondents who had initially filed the writ petition before the High Court\nchallenging the appointment of Nathani as the Advocate General did not appear\nbefore this Court. This clearly demonstrates the non- seriousness and\nnon-commitment of the respondents in filing the petition. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Judgment:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. In the instant case, the High Court\nentertained the petition despite the fact that the controversy involved in the\ncase was no longer res integra<\/em>. The\ncontroversy raised by the petitioner in this case was decided 58 years ago in\nthe judgment of Karkare[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>\nwhich was approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court way back in\n1962. Unfortunately, the same controversy has been repeatedly raised from time\nto time in various High Courts. When the controversy is no longer res-integra\nand the same controversy is raised repeatedly, then it not only wastes the\nprecious time of the Court and prevent the Court from deciding other deserving\ncases, but also has the immense potentiality of demeaning a very important\nconstitutional office and person who has been appointed to that office. <\/li>
    2. To settle the controversy, we deem it\nappropriate to deal with different definitions of the Public Interest\nLitigation in various countries. We would also examine the evolution of the\npublic interest litigation. DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION[2]<\/a>:<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      \u201cPublic Interest – Something in which\nthe public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some\ninterest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not\nmean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the\nparticular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question.\nInterest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national\ngovernment….\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n