The court emphasized the limitations of public interest litigation and the judiciary's role in policy matters, highlighting that it cannot interfere with decisions taken between sovereign states.

The invasion, and occupation of Kuwait on 2nd August, 1990, and the subsequent annexation of the same as a province of Iraq leading to the gulf crisis raise many questions of fundamental importance to the world, the offshoot of which, in the national plane, is the one I am concerned in this. This petition, a public interest litigation, is by an Advocate practising in this Court, filed as 'Deseeya President' of 'May¬dina Thozhilali Kendram', seeking to quash the decision of the 1st respondent permitting U.S. Aircrafts to land at Bombay Sagar International Airport and to refuel from c-1-1991 onwards. By a supplementary affidavit filed on 4-2-1991, it is stated that the refuelling is done also at Meenambakkam Airport and at Agra Airport. Petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from allowing the refuelling of U.S. Aircrafts in Sagar International Airport, Bombay, or from any other Airports in India.

2. Petitioner's case is that there is acute shortage of fuel in India and permitting U.S. Military Aircrafts for refuelling in India is detrimental to the interests of this Country. It is also stated that the entire operation of refuelling is carried on in top secret and nobody is permitted to see the fuelling operations. The decision of the Government of India extending refuelling facilities to U.S. Military aircrafts has been characterised as unfriendly act by the Government of India towards Gulf countries including Palestine. The matter was argued elaborately before me, emphasising the effect it will have in the international relations, and the established relationship with the gulf countries. Petitioner by himself is not an aggrieved party. But he represents an organization which condemns the decision of the Government of India as anti-national. The so called decision, which the petitioner seeks to quash, has not been produced by the petitioner, and that by itself is a ground for denying the relief, for it was held by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. Central Government ((1986) 4 SCC 667) at 675, para.9) as follows:

"Normally whenever an order of Government or some authority is impugned before the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution, the copy of the order must be produced before it. In the absence of the impugned order, it would not be possible to ascertain the reasons which may have impelled the authority to pass the order. It is therefore improper to quash an order which is not produced before the High Court in a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution."

3. The Supreme Court very recently emphasised the legitimate purpose for which public interest litigation should be used. Such legal proceedings should be used only to vindicate the fundamental and other rights of the group of persons who financially and socially backward. It should not be used to advance any private rights, or even public rights of any group of persons subscribing to any particular view points. In such cases, it is the duty of the Courts to discourage such petitions. The said decision of the Supreme Court is in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar G.T. 1991 (1) sc 78). The operative portion of the decision at page 83 reads as follows:

"Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Art.32, are entertained, it would amount to abuse of process of the Court preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Art.32 of the Constitution in the garb of public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.32 must approach this