The practice of filing public interest litigation by an advocate is not appreciated as per the decision in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the unauthorized/deviated constructions put up by the third respondent at Old No.9, New No.17, Oakland Apartment, Melony Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.)

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.

1. This public interest litigation has been filed to seek a direction on the first and second respondents to initiate action against the third respondent's unauthorizedly constructed commercial building.

2. The petitioner, a practising lawyer, filed this public interest litigation. During the course of argument, it is stated that his senior was having office in the same building in which now an allegation of its use for commercial purpose has been alleged. It is, further, with the statement that the petitioner's senior had vacated the premises almost 5 to 6 years back. The petitioner, appearing in person, stated that he is residing 6 to 7 kilometers away from the building in question, however, he has right to initiate this public interest litigation in view of the protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Before filing the writ petition, a representation was given to Chennai Municipal Corporation, however no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this public interest litigation.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that after receipt of the representation made by the petitioner, the officers of Chennai Municipal Corporation had called for the private respondent to find out the approval of the building plan. It is, however, found that the building is existing for last 40 years and if we can take the statement of the petitioner that his senior was having office in the same place and vacated 5 to 6 years back, no justification for delay had been given. It cannot, thus, be considered to be a bonafide public interest litigation and it is not to be used for the purpose it is taken by the petitioner in person. A reference of the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4923 of 2012 [Ramasamy @ Traffic Ramasamy v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, St. George Fort, Chennai-8 and others] decided on 05.03.2012 has been given. More specifically, paragraph 4 of the said order has been referred and the same has been quoted hereunder:

"4. Time and again, the Supreme Court, as also this Court, has observed that public interest litigation is only intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed. It has also been held that public interest litigation is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens as this jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the downtrodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. The Supreme Court has held that while exercising the jurisdiction, the court must see that very large section of the society, because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy, had been denied justice for time immemorial and in fact, they have no access to justice vide Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal [A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 280], R & M Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group [(2005) 3 SCC 91], State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, [(2010) 3 S.C.C. 402], People's Union for Democratic Rights and others vs. Union of India, [(1982) 3 S.C.C. 235] and Pugalenthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu [W.P. No.4233 of 2012 dated 2.3.2012]."

In the said writ petition, action against the construction of a multistoried building at No.153/156, Peters Road, Chennai was sought. Therein, the observation of the Division Bench of this Court was that such litigation cannot be sa