P.I.L. must be filed bona fide and not with an oblique motive. Where an individual dispute can be raised, P.I.L. should not be encouraged.

B. L. Yadav, J.

1. Whether the present writ petition filed by Shri ratnesh Kumar Singh, an Advocate of this Court, as Public Interest Litigation (for short "p. I. L. ") is maintainable; and whether the relief claimed that the examinees may be allowed choice examination centre/residential centre in the various Entrance Examinations for admission in the Technical institution (Medical/engineering, etc.)and other competitive examinations can be allowed, particularly in respect of subsequent year when the examination has already been held in may-June, 1995, are short but significant questions for our determination in the present writ-petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. We are conscious that the facts from raw material out of which finished product of judicial findings is fabricated after processing through established legal principles, as in life so in law. It is as fatal, at the same time cowardly not to bring full facts because they are not to our taste. Factual foundation of the petition appears, therefore, to be imperative. By the instant writ-petition relief has been sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandmus directing the respondents not to cause harassment to a number of candidates appearing in the various entrance examinations for admission in Technical Institutions (Medical/engineering etc. ). The respondents conduct the examinations for selecting candidates for admission in the Technical Institutions. The Centres for holding such examinations are fixed arbitrarily at a considerable and inconvenient distance, particularly to the girl students. The principal prayer is that the respondents be directed to hold examinations on the choice centres of the examinees. The petitioners being an Advocate has, however, no where averred in the petition as to how he is interested in the welfare of the examinees. Even after residential centres are not allowed to hold examination, there has been no noticeable reforms in the matters of unfair means and/or leakage of question papers; etc. The policy of the Government is in violation of the Bihar Conduct of examiantion Act, 1981.

3. By a supplementary affidavit it has been averred in paragraph 4 that the "petitioner is also the guardian of the examinees. " The simple meaning of this sentence that "the petitioner is the guardian of all examinees" appearing in such examinations. It is in fact surprising as to how an Advocate of this Court can be guardian of the examinees, without indicating the names of the students under his guardianship. The expression is too vague to the appreciable.

4. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the order for fixing centres for examination at distant places has adversely affected the legal and fundamental rights of the students appearing for Technical Examinations concluded in May-June, 1995.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the present P. I. L. would not be maintainable, as the same has not been filed by the aggrieved person or by any of the examinees or his/her natural or legal guardian. The petitioner being an Advocate, belongs to the noble profession of law but has not specifically stated as to how he is interested in the welfare of the examinees, except a bald averment in the supplementary affidavit that he is guardian of all the examinees. It was also urged that the examination for 1995 for which the relief was sought, has already been held in May-June, 1995 and no relief for future examinations has been claimed. The preliminary objection raised, was refuted on behalf of the petitioner, and the petition as P. I. L. is maintainable and reliance was placed on State of himachal Pradesh V/s. A Parent of a student of Medical College, Shimla and others [air 1985 S. C.910] and S. P. Gupta V/s. Union of India and another [1981 (Supp.) S. C. C.87] and on Rural litigation and Entitlement Claim V/s. State of U. P. [judgments Today 1988 (3) Supreme Court 787].

6