Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ.
Sh. Ali Mohammed - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWP No. 4838 of 2015
Decided On : 16-3-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal
For the Respondent: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. J.K. Verma, R1, Mr. B.S. Attri, R2
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to discourage frivolous public interest litigations, protect the jurisdiction from abuse, and exercise caution in entertaining public interest litigations, especially in matters of religious institutions.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Constitution of Himachal Pradesh Waqf Board - Waqf (Amendment Act, 2013) - Section 14(1) - The Court found that the petitioner's claim of filing the petition as Pro Bono Publico lacked material to establish public interest. The petitioner's history of similar litigations and lack of credibility led the Court to conclude that the petition was a proxy litigation. The Court highlighted the growing menace of so-called public interest litigation and referred to previous judgments warning against such misadventures. The Court emphasized the need to discourage frivolous public interest litigations and protect the jurisdiction from abuse. The Court also discussed the limited scope of public interest litigation in matters of religious institutions and the necessity to exercise caution in entertaining such litigations. The Court concluded that the Waqf Board had been constituted in accordance with the law and that the petition did not qualify as a Public Interest Litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to have filed the petition as Pro Bono Publico against the illegal constitution of the Himachal Pradesh Waqf Board and the arbitrary nomination made by the State to the electoral college under the Waqf (Amendment Act, 2013). The Court directed the petitioner to justify the maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioner argued that being a Muslim, he had the right to file the petition as he had sufficient interest in the subject matter.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's claim of filing the petition as Pro Bono Publico lacked material to establish public interest. The petitioner's history of similar litigations and lack of credibility led the Court to conclude that the petition was a proxy litigation. The Court highlighted the growing menace of so-called public interest litigation and referred to previous judgments warning against such misadventures. The Court emphasized the need to discourage frivolous public interest litigations and protect the jurisdiction from abuse. The Court also discussed the limited scope of public interest litigation in matters of religious institutions and the necessity to exercise caution in entertaining such litigations. The Court concluded that the Waqf Board had been constituted in accordance with the law and that the petition did not qualify as a Public Interest Litigation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of filing the petition as Pro Bono Publico, the maintainability of the writ petition, and the credibility of the petitioner in establishing public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the lack of material to establish public interest, the petitioner's history of similar litigations, and the lack of credibility. The Court emphasized the need to discourage frivolous public interest litigations and protect the jurisdiction from abuse. The Court also discussed the limited scope of public interest litigation in matters of religious institutions and the necessity to exercise caution in entertaining such litigations.
Final Decision: The Court concluded that the Waqf Board had been constituted in accordance with the law and that the petition did not qualify as a Public Interest Litigation. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
The petitioner claims to have filed this petition as Pro Bono Publico against the so called illegal constitution of the Himachal Pradesh Waqf Board as well as the arbitrary nomination made by the State to the electoral college to be constituted under the Waqf (Amendment Act, 2013), (herein after referred to as the Act for short).
2. This Court vide its order dated 30.12.2015 had directed the petitioner to justify the maintainability of the writ petition. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being a Muslim has every right to file the present petition, as he has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the present petition.
3. At the outset, we may observe that save and except by claiming that the petition has been filed in public interest, there is no material whatsoever placed on record whereby it can be gathered that the petitioner is a pro bono publico or that the petition in fact has been filed in public interest. Rather, if one would go through the entire petition, it would be evident that the element of public interest is conspicuously absent.
4. The credibility of the petitioner further becomes doubtful when one would go through the history of the previous litigations regarding the constitution of this very Board. In the year 2005 one Bashir Khan along with other persons filed CWP No. 12 of 2005 before this Court assailing the notification issued by the State Government on 9th December, 2004, whereby it had nominated members to the Waqf Board. When the said petition came up for hearing on 7.1.2005, it was fairly conceded by the State Government that owing to some technical reasons, the State Government may be permitted to revert/revoke and withdraw the said notification and the petition was consequently dismissed. Thereafter, in the year 2010 another petition by way of CWP No. 7647 of 2010 came to be filed before this Court assailing therein again the notification constituting the Waqf Board and this petition came to be withdrawn on 24th May, 2012.
5. It is not the result of this petition that we are concerned, rather we are primarily concerned with the averments made in all these petitions (supra), which are verbatim the same as those in this petition. This in itself does not only suggest, but clearly indicates that this is a proxy litigation where the petitioner has been set up at the behest of someone else. Not only has the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court about his credibility, but has even failed to satisfy the prima facie correctness of the nature of information given by him, which is discussed in the latter part of this judgment. What we can, therefore, infer is that the petitioner has indulged in public mischief for oblique motive and in such circumstances the Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with such imposters, busybody and meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public spirited holy men. The petitioner cannot masquerade as crusader of justice and is only pretending to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though he has no interest in the public to protect. The instant petition has been filed under ploy for achieving oblique motives.
6. The growing menace of so called public interest litigation has been repeatedly noticed by this Court and we need only to refer a recent judgment delivered by this Court on 6th October, 2015 in CWP No. 405 of 2014, titled Satish Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, wherein it was held:-
“6. It is settled law that before entertaining public interest litigation, the Courts have to be satisfied about bonafide of the petitioner and it is the cause of the public which he seeks to espouse through such litigation. This Court is repeatedly coming across litigations under the brand name of public interest litigation, whereas, the same is used for suspicious products of mischief. T
