The court clarified the limitations of Public Interest Litigation and emphasized that it should be confined to legal wrong and legal injury to a group of people or class of persons, not individual wrongs.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition in Public Interest qua the denial of Arjuna Award for the year 2013 to Shri Renjith Maheswari inspite of declaration of his name as recipient thereof and after preparatory steps for conferment of the said award on Shri Renjith Maheswari had been taken. The said denial being owing to the respondent no.4 Athletics Federation of India (AFI) having found the said Shri Renjith Maheswari to be in violation of the Anti-Doping Rule, the petitioner in this petition, besides seeking a direction for conferment of Arjuna Award on Shri Renjith Maheswari and / or to include him in the list of Awardees for the year 2014, also impugns (i) the order dated 13th October, 2008 of the AFI suspending the said Shri Renjith Maheswari from participating in any domestic or international competition in athletics owing to the said violation; (ii) the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2009, also of AFI of imposing ban on the said Shri Renjith Maheswari for a period of three months w.e.f. 13.10.2008 from taking part in any domestic / international competition in athletics owing to Anti-Doping Rule violation; (iii) the withdrawal of the name of the said Shri Renjith Maheswari from the list of Arjuna Awardees for the year 2013 on discovering the said facts; and, (iv) the report of the laboratory on the basis whereof the said Shri Renjith Maheswari was found to have failed the Anti-Doping Test.

2. The petition was not filed as a Public Interest Litigation. However the learned Single Judge before whom the petition was first listed, finding that the petitioner had no locus / cause of action to impugn the various orders of suspension and ban from participation in domestic / international events in athletics and that the petitioner had no right to seek the direction for conferment of Arjuna Award on Shri Renjith Maheswari, held the petition to be in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and ordered the petition to be put up before this Bench.

3. We had on the last date of hearing enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how this petition could be said to be in public interest and as to why the aggrieved person i.e. Shri Renjith Maheswari had not come before the Court and how could this Court presume that the said Shri Renjith Maheswari was interested in having his affairs investigated by this Court, as would be but necessary to adjudicate this petition and what was there to show that even if the petition were to be allowed, the said Shri Renjith Maheswari is willing to accept the Arjuna Award. It was further enquired whether not it will be a strange / anomalous situation if inspite of this Court finding in favour of the said Shri Renjith Maheswari and holding that his name was wrongly dropped from the list announced of Arjuna Awardees, he were still to refuse to take the award, as he would still be entitled to. On request of the counsel then appearing for the petitioner the matter was adjourned to today.

4. The senior counsel for the petitioner today appearing has drawn our attention to the pleas in the petition to the effect that the petitioner has been effectively supporting and helping the said Shri Renjith Maheswari in all ways including financially and that the said Shri Renjith Maheswari as well as his father are members of the petitioner organization. It is further highlighted that the petition with the said grievance was originally filed as W.P.(C) No.301/2014 before the Supreme Court and was entertained and a counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 Union of India which disclosed the reasons aforesaid which prevailed for dropping the name of Shri Renjith Maheswari from the list of Arjuna Awardees for the year 2013. The petitioner however on 5th May, 2014 when this petition was listed before the Supreme Court, sought permission for withdrawal thereof disclosing the intention to pursue its remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to challenge