1999 Supreme(SC) 929

1999(7) Supreme 332
Supreme Court of India
(From Madjhya Pradesh High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Malik Brothers -Appellant
versus
Narendra Dadhich & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 47379 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23607 of 1999)
Deciding 25-08-1999.
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S. Muralidhar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Shrish Kumar Misra, Advocate (S.K. Gambhir) Advocate for Vivek Gambhir, Advocate (Ms. Madhur Dadlani) advocate for S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate/Advocates.

Important point
The directions and commands issued by the courts of law in a public interest litigation are for the bettermetn of the society at large and not for benefiting any individual. But if the courts finds that in the grab of a public interest litigation actually an individual’s interest is sought to be carried out or protected, it would be the bounden duty of the court not to entertain such petition as otherwise the very purpose of inno­vation of public interestt litigation will be frustated.

Headnote:Public Interest Litigation-Cre­teria for entertainment of-Direc­tions and Commands issued by courts of law in public interest litigation are for betterment of society at large and not for any individual-If Court finds that in grab of public interest litigation actually an individual interest is sought to be protected, it would be bounden duty of Court not to entertain such petition-Public auction of property by Indore Development authority-Highest bidder deposited intitial premium but defaulted in payment of rest of amount- Initial premium forfeited-Subequent request for arbitration - Arbitrator deciding case infavour of biddder-Writ petition by a fax payer to municipality contending award to be serious public injury-Allegation that value of land would be more than for which same is going to be handed over pursuant to award-High Court Holding that there had been a gross violation of Section 21 of Arbitration Act - High Court quashed resolution of Development authority referring dispute arbitrator and also arbitration award-Not justified-Very act of entertaining as a public interest litigation at behest a person who has no interest in transaction was improper.

       Held : A public interest litigation is usually entertained by a court for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social rights and vindicating public interest. The real purpose of entertain­ing such application is the vindication of the rule of law, effective access to justice to the economically weaker class and meaningful realisation of the fundamental rights. The directions and commands issued by the courts of law in a public interest litigation are for the bettermetn of the society at large and not for benefiting any individual. But if the courts finds that in the grab of a public interest litigation actually an individual’s interest is sought to be carried out or protected, it would be the bounden duty of the court not to entertain such petition as otherwise the very purpose of inno­vation of public interestt litigation will be frustated. It is in fact a litigation in which a person is not aggrieved personally but bring­san action on behalf of down-trodden mass for the redressal of their grievance. (Para 2)

       The land in question was admit­tedly put to public auction and the appellant was the highest bidder and this fact has not been disputed at any stage. The further admitted position is that the appellant had deposited some amount but could not deposit the balance amount even though the bid of the appellant was accepted by the competent authority and for non-deposit of the balance amount, the earlier amount deposited stood forfeited which however was challenged by the appellant. It is at that stage the Indore Develop­ment Authority took into consideration all the relevant factors and thought it appropriate to refer all disputes pertaining to the land, which was subject matter of the auction for arbitration. Not an iota of material has been placed before us to indicate that the said decision of the Improvement Trust was either for extranious considera­tion or had not been taken bona fide. In course of hearing of this appeal, not an iota of material was produced before us by respondent No. 1 at whose instance the High Court had entertained the public interest litigation petition to indicate that there was any infirmity in the auction that was held on 15.481 and that the highest bid ob­tained was not genuine and the price obtained thereon is grossly low. Though a bald price of the land would be much higher that the highest auction prive which the appellant had offered but no substantive material had been produced in the High Court and nothing has been brought to the notice of this court also. In this view of the matter we fail to understand as to how the High Court could come to the conclusion that there has been gross public injury by referring the matter to the arbitrator and the Improvement Trust has acted beyond its jurisdiction by referring the dispute pertaining to the land in question to the arbitrator. In our considered opinion the very act of entertaining the application as a publi interest litigation at the behest of respondent No. 1, who has absloutely no interest in the transaction was improper and the High Court had in fact not adverted to the parameters for entertaining a petition as a public interest litigation. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage that two other auctions, similarly held were not assailed but it is the auction where the appellant was the highest bidder was only assailed for the reasons know to respondent No. 1. When the appellant had challenged the legality of the action of the competent authority in the matter of forfeiture of the deposit made, the competent authority thought it appropriate to refer the entire dispute pertaining to the land in question for arbitration and we see no infirmity with that decision nor that decision can be said to have been taken on some extraneous consideration. We also fail to appreciate the conclusion of the High Court on Section 21 of the Arbitration Act inas much as there is no bar for parties to a dispute to refer the dispute for arbitra­tion instead of litigating in common law courts.In our view, Section 21 of the Arbitration Act does not debar the parties to refer a dis­pute between them to an arbitrator, particularly when the litigation in normal course has become not only expensive but also continues for years together. If any informal forum is chosen by the parties for expetitious decision of their disputes, it would not be safe for a court of law to come to a conclusion that such decision has been taken for any extraneous consideration without any supporting materials in that regard. In the case in hand, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh committed serious error of law by invoking its discretionary jurisdic­tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the behest of a person who has no interest in the litigation in question and in quash­ing the decision of the Indore Development Authority of referring the dispute to the arbitrator as well as the award of the competent arbi­trator, by entering into an arena of conjecture and by assuming that the price of land must have gone up without having before them any materials in that respect. We have no hisitaition, therefore to set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court and we accordingly do so. Necessarily, therefore, the award of the competent arbitrator remains operative and the rights of the parties flowing therefrom having to be worked out in accordance with law. (Para 4)