The judgment emphasizes the importance of genuine public interest litigation and discourages frivolous petitions. It highlights the limitations of mandamus in the absence of a pre-existing statutory duty.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition styled as a public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner describing himself to be a practicing Advocate at the civil court Bhinga, Shrawasti. He seeks direction upon the Chairman/Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow to take disciplinary action against private respondent nos.4 & 5 were Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board and J.R.F., U.P. Pollution Control Board respectively. Further direction has been sought for decision on the petitioner's application/representation dated 28.1.2023 filed on affidavit addressed to the Chairman, U.P. Pollution Control Board.

2. At the outset, preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel both as to the earlier similar petition filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed and also on account of the fact that the petitioner being a practicing Advocate is not an expert in the field of pollution. He may not have filed the present petition. Present petition has been described as a colourable proceeding instituted to achieve collateral purpose. He has relied on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh Soni (Advocate) vs State of U.P. & Ors (P.I.L. Civil No. 11520 of 2021), decided on 7.6.2021.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it may be noted, the relief being sought by the petitioner is not to improve the general condition of the environment of any particular locality. Rather, it has been filed to pursue complaint made by the petitioner (in his personal capacity) against private individual who happen to be the functionaries of the U.P. Pollution Control Board. In the first place, we do not wish to make any observation as may reflect on the merits of that complaint. A citizen who may have made a complaint against an administrative authority may be permitted to pursue the same to its logical end. Administrative authorities may also remain cognizant of any such complaint and may, in deserving facts, deal with such complaints in the manner deemed appropriate.

4. In the context of writ jurisdiction, a writ of mandamus may lie where a statutory duty pre-exists and further when invoked, the authority vested with that statutory function may have either failed or refused to exercise the same.

5. That being the basic principle, the present complaint made is non-statutory. In absence of pre-existing statutory duty, no mandamus may lie so as to compel any authority to act in any particular manner. In exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ court may remain ever vigilant not to exceed jurisdiction and not to confer jurisdiction on government functionaries and authorities, where none pre-exists.

6. Then, in Gurmeet Singh Soni (supra), it was observed as under:

"20. The Public Interest Litigation is an important jurisdiction which is exercised by the Constitutional Courts be it Supreme Court or the High Court. It has well settled that any authority which is vested or endowed with great powers, such authority must exercise the same with great caution and responsibility.

21. The Apex Court as well as the High Courts having found that large sections of the society because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy have been denied justice for time immemorial as they have no access to justice. Predominantly, to provide access to justice to the poor, deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalized section of the society, the Constitutional Courts encouraged and propelled the public interest litigation. This jurisdiction has been created and carved out by judicial creativity and craftsmanship.

22. The Apex Court in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 246 in Para-62 has held as under:-

"62. ... Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad-based and people-oriente