Honble GARG, J.–Heard at the admission stage.

(2). This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practitioner lawyer of this court, against the respondents Union of India through Ministry of law, New Delhi and Rajasthan High Court through Registrar General, Jodhpur on 20.9.2004 with the prayer that preventive measures be taken to prevent the falling of human values in this Court and further, the respondent No. 1 Union of India be directed to decide the representation dated 21.6.2004 (Ex.9) made by the petitioner to the Minister of Law, Central Government, New Delhi.

(3). From a bare reading of the present writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved from the conduct, behaviour and judgments passed by some of the Honble Judges of this Court highlighting some of the instances of them. The petitioner has based his petition on several headings such as human values, fight against injustice, all that glitters is not gold, quality of decision, judicial mis-behaviour etc. etc.

(4). The office of this Court has listed this petition before the Singh Bench, but according to the petitioner, who himself is a practitioner layer of this, Court, this petition should have been listed before the Division Bench of this Court as according to him, the matter involved in it is of public interest and it should be treated as PIL and further, since it has been filed against the High Court, therefore, from this point of view also, this petition should have been listed before the Division Bench of this Court.

(5). On the above submissions, this Court vide order dated 29.9.2004 directed the office to report whether this petition is required to be heard by the Division Bench or Single Bench and the office vide report dated 29.9.2004 has opined that it should be listed before the single Bench. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 1.10.2004 has observed that in view of the office report dated 29.9.2004, this matter should be listed before the Single Bench and in these circumstances, the matter has come up before this Single Bench.

(6). Since a preliminary objection orally as well as in writing has been raised by the petitioner that this petition should be treated as PIL, therefore, first it has to be answered whether this petition in the present form and in the manner in which it is filed can be treated as petition for PIL or not.

On Public Interest (Litigation (PIL)

(7). Lexically the expression Public Interest Litigation (PIL) means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or class of the community has pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.

(8). The true public interest litigation is one in which a selfless citizen having no personal motive of any kind except either compassion for the weak and disabled or deep concern for stopping serious public injury approaches the Court for either of the following purposes:-

(i) Enforcement of fundamental rights of those who genuinely do not have adequate means of access to the judicial system or statutory provisions incorporating the directive principles of State Policy for amelioration of their condition;

(ii) Preventing or annulling executive acts and omissions violative of constitution or law resulting in substantial injury to public interest.

(9). Personal grievances could not be enforced in the garg of public interest litigation.

(10). In Nandjee Singh vs. P.G. Medical Students Association (AIR 1993 SC 2264), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that an individual dispute should not be allowed to be converted into a public interest litigation.

(11). In the present case, a bare perusal of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct, behaviour and judgments delivered by some of the Honble Judges of this Court and thus, the grievances, which the petitioner has, are h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document