Public Interest Litigations should be grounded in genuine public interest; mere personal grievances lack standing.

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

4 04-12-2025 The present writ application has been filed in form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the following reliefs:

“i. For issuance of writ in nature of quo warranto calling upon the private respondent under what authority the person who is the Nominated Member is holding the post of Registrar of the Bihar Pharmacy Council Patna, as he has been appointed as Acting Registrar misinterpreting the order dated 23.06.2022 passed in CWJC No.20704/21 by issuing the public notice in the light of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court and conducting the election in a very hush hush manner and against the provision as laid down in and appointing the Registrar who did not have the requisite qualification as per Notification dated 08.06.1960 Rule

1 issued by the Health Department.

ii. For issuance writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to withdraw the notification/order appointing the private respondent who is also a nominated member as the Acting Registrar-cum- Secretary, Bihar Pharmacy Council as he is not eligible for being appointed as Registrar, Bihar Pharmacy Council as he is not holding the said po the due procedure of law mandated under the rules and Act.

iii. For issuance of direction to cancel the entire election process conducted by the Bihar Pharmacy Council, Patna in the light of the order 23.06.2022 passed in CWJC No.- 20704 of 2021 as the same has been conducted while bypassing the governing rules and laws and conducted vide online mode where no such mode is permissible under the rules.

iv. Further for issuance of any other writ/writs, order/or direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. From perusal of reliefs sought for and the materials on record it is clear that the petitioner has challenged the entire election conducted by the Bihar Pharmacy Council, Patna. However, it is important to note that the petitioner has neither participated in the said election nor he was a voter in the said election. Thus, the locus of the petitioner to challenge the said election in the present application is not made out.

3. It is also noteworthy that the appropriate forum to challenge elections conducted by the Bihar Pharmacy Council, Patna shall be the state government. Thus, the appropriate recourse regarding election disputes could have been taken as per Section 24 of the Pharmacy Act , 1948, which reads as under:

“24. Mode of elections.-Elections under this Chapter shall be conducted in the prescribed manner, and where any dispute arises regarding any such election, it shall be referred to the State Government whose decision shall be final.”

4. The issues raised in a Public Interest Litigation should be of a nature that limits its scope to the public at large. The courts have from time to time cautioned about the misuse of Public Interest Litigation so as to prevent the abuse of process of law. In Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India , (2011) 3 SCC

287, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:

“43. The courts, while exercising jurisdiction and deciding a public interest litigation, have to take great care, primarily, for the reason that wide jurisdiction should not become a source of abuse of process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Such careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose true facts and approach the Court with clean hands. Thus, it is imperative that the petiti