HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CJ Court

Case: PIL No. 2 of 2019

Mrs. Sudesh Langeh

.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through :- Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Advocate

v/s

State of J&K and others

.....Respondent(s)

Through :- Sh. P S Chandel, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

ORDER

04.03.2022

01.

A house wife Smt. Sudesh Langeh resident of Jammu has preferred to

invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court in public interest for

the quashing the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Beggary Act,

1960 and Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Beggary Rules, 1964 to a limited

extent where they criminalizes the act of begging and for quashing of the

provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 which provide for punishing of those

found begging.

02.

The relief clause of the petition for the sake of convenience is

reproduced here in above:

“ (a) The Petition may be allowed

(b) The sections criminalizing the act of begging in J&K

Prevention of Beggar Act, 1960 and the J&K Prevention of

Beggary Rules, 1964 may be quashed

(c) The clause punishing those begging under Railways Act,

1989 (Central) may be quashed.

OR

Sr. No. 12

2

PIL No. 2 of 2019

(d) The Hon’ble Court may pass any other appropriate order as

it deems fit.”

03.

The petitioner in the writ petition has arrayed the state of Jammu &

Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Department of Law, Justice &

Parliamentary Affairs, Department of Social Welfare, Director General of

Police, J&K and Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways as

the respondents. All the respondents except respondent No. 4, Director General

of Police, J&K have filed objections to the writ petition. The respondent No. 1

and 2 have jointly filed the objections whereas respondent No. 3 and 5 have

filed their separate objections. The respondents have categorically stated that

the writ petition in public interest is not maintainable. It has not been filed in

public interest. None of the fundamental rights of the petitioner stands violated.

The writ petition is an attempt to hamper the smooth working of the Indian

Railways. The petitioner has not disclosed much of her credentials to maintain

the writ petition in public interest.

04.

The petitioner as per the pleadings has disclosed that she is a house wife

who has no personal interest in the matter and that she is espousing the cause

of the destitute and the third gender. She along with her husband was moved by

the plight of the destitute and that she has involved herself in creating

awareness in her village for protecting the destitute and in educating young

children. Apart from making the above averments she has not stated anything

as to what impelled her to take up the cause of the beggars so as to challenge

the validity of the above Acts providing for the criminalization of begging. She

has no where pleaded as to any action taken by her to promote social justice or

the social work done by her in the past for uplifting the beggars or the third

gender. She has not even mentioned about the social work she has done so far

or she is doing in the present.

3

PIL No. 2 of 2019

05.

In ‘T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India AIR 2006 SC

1774,’ it has been held that none has a right to approach the court in public

interest and that court must be careful and ensure that the person who is

approaching the court is acting bonafidely and not for personal gain, private

profit, political motivation or other/considerations such as for one’s own

publicity.

06.

In Seema Upadhyay vs Union of India AIR 2018 SC 2855, it has been

clearly laid down that Pu