The court emphasized the importance of genuine public interest, the need for sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation, and the requirement to satisfy parameters such as disadvantaged sections of society, judicial law making, and larger public interest.

Alok Aradhe, J.

In this petition which has been filed by a practicing lawyer of this court, pro bono publico, the petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 11.03.2008 as well as 31.05.2008 by which, in 43rd Board Meeting of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (for short ‘the Shrine Board’), decision has been taken to charge a sum of Rs.16,000/- for Aarti for one adult and on certain auspicious occasions which have been mentioned therein, a sum of Rs.21,000/- is sought to be charged for performing Shradha Suman Vishesh Pooja darshan, as well as a sum of Rs.1,000/- for participating in the Attaka Arti performed at the temple of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi, respectively.

2. Petitioner, who appears in person before us submitted that the rules of locus have to be relaxed in public interest litigation and where constitutional rights of public in general are infringed, the public interest litigation should be entertained. It is further submitted that the impugned orders dated 11.03.2008 and 31.05.2008 constitute infraction of Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution of India and there appears to be no justification for passing the aforesaid orders. It is also submitted that Section 18 of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988 (for short’ the Act’) does not empower the respondents to pass the impugned orders. It is also argued that Shrine Board has sufficient funds and there is absolutely no justification for passing the impugned orders. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has referred to the decisions of this Court in the case of SOS International and ors. v. State of J&K and ors, 2016 (2) JKJ 729 and has also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. C K Rajan, 2003 (7) SCC 546, Chain Singh v. Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, 2004(12) SCC 634, Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India, 2005 (4) SCC 649, and in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 3 SCC 402, Balwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and ors, 2015 (4) SCC 801.

3. On the other hand, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. D.C. Raina for the respondents has submitted that instant writ petition in fact is a publicity interest litigation and a well informed decision has been taken by the members of the Shrine Board who come from distinguished background and the aforesaid decision has been taken after due deliberation and the Shrine Board is empowered to pass such orders in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) as well as Section 18(9) of the Act. It is submitted that in the writ petition, no averment has been made in respect of the locus of the petitioner and the same does not fall within the purview of the Public Interest Litigation. It is also submitted that a well considered policy decision has been taken by the Board for the convenience of the pilgrims and this court in exercise of powers of judicial review would not transgress on the policy decision which is taken by the Shrine Board. It is also urged that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is also pointed out that the Shrine Board is not amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the plea of infraction of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. It is also urged that the affidavit as well as averments made in the writ petition do not conform to the requirements of the rules framed by this court governing the filing of the public interest litigations. In support of the submissions, learned senior counsel for the respondents has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 2004 (3) SCC 349, Omkar Sharma and ors. v. Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, 2005 (1) SLJ 260, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2005 (1) SCC 590 and Bhuri Nath and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors, 2010 (5) JKJ 611[SC].

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the