JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — This case is a sad reflection on members of the legal profession and is almost a black spot on the noble profession. The petitioner who belongs to this profession filed a petition styled as “Public Interest Litigation” before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. By the impugned judg¬ment, the High Court dismissed it holding that there was no public interest involved and in fact the petitioner had resorted to black-mailing respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and was caught red-handed accepting 'black-mailing money'. The High Court also noticed that the allegations of unauthorized constructions made in the petition were also not true.

2. Cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) which was levied, was directed to be paid to the affected respon¬dent Nos. 6 and 7 before the High Court

3. It is, in fact, a black day for the black robed profes¬sionals, if the allegation, as found by the High Court to be true and which presently appear to be the subject matter of further proceeding in a criminal case, are true. This will leave the members of the legal profession black faced for the black deed of the petitioner who may be as the High Court found a black sheep in the profession. Though the petition filed by the petitioner carried the attractive brand name of ‘Public Interest Litigation’, the least that can be said is that it smacks of every thing what the Public Interest Litigation should not be.

4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be ‘publicity interest litigation’ or ‘private interest limitation’ or ‘politics interest litigation’ or the latest trend ‘paise income litigation’. The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the last category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful think¬ing. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992(4) SCC 305) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Cen¬tral Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petition¬er but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. (See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994(6) SCC 620.

5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expres¬sion ‘public interest litigation’. In Stroud’s Judicial Diction¬ary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), ‘Public Interest' is defined thus :

“Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting a gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilit