JUDGMENT
C.S. Rajan, J.
1. The petitioner filed this original petition ;as a public interest litigation for and on behalf of the public and to protect their interest. According to the petitioner several corrupt practices are repeatedly going on in the telephone exchanges at Pala, Erapupetta, Ettumanoor and Ramapuram of Kottayam district causing loss of many lakhs of rupees to the telecommunication department in particular and to the nation in general. The foundation of those allegations are mainly Exts.P5, P6 and P7 press reports. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P5 petition before the Additional Director General of Police, Trivandrum and Ext.P10 petition before the 5th respondent. He has also approached the 6th respondent by filing Ext.P13 petition. The petition filed before the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Trivandrum was forwarded to the third respondent as per Ext.P9 to take necessary action. The 5th respondent by Ext.P11 informed the petitioner that on a preliminary enquiry carried out, it was seen that most of the alleged irregularities could not be proved due to lack of material evidence. It was also stated that they were keeping a close watch. By Ext.P12 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CB CID (SR), Trivandrum informed the petitioner that a complaint before the C.B.I. (Cochin) might be filed.
2. Dissatisfied with the lethargy and the
laxity on the part of the various respondents
in responding to the serious allegations made
by the petitioner against the officers of the
telecommunication department, petitioner
filed this original petition mainly praying for
a writ of mandamus to the 6th respondent to
conduct immediate investigation into the
allegations made in Ext.P13 complaint and
Ext.P7 paper report and to file a copy of the
investigation report before this Court within a
stipulated time. Respondents 2, 5 and 7 to 10
have filed counter affidavits. The 4th respondent has filed a statement. In the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and
5 it was stated that no corrupt practices were
reported to have taken place in the places
mentioned in the statement of facts and there
was no loss to the telecommunication department. It was further stated that the Sub-
Divisional Engineer (Vigilance) in the Office
of the General Manager, Telecommunications, Kottayam had conducted a very detail
ed investigation on the alleged burning of
1500 kg. of cable. Each and every allegation
made by the petitioner had been the subject of
departmental enquiry. Therefore it was finally stated that there was no ground for this
Court to give any direction and that none of
the allegations made by the petitioner had
been substantiated on enquiry and that the
petitioner had been carrying on a smear
campaign through papers and otherwise. In
the statement filed by the 4th respondent it
was stated that 5 cases were charged by the
local police and that a special team had been
constituted in Pala Sub-Division to conduct
further investigation in the above cases. The
allegation that local police did not take any
legal action on the offences reported was
denied.
3. The 7th respondent who is the main target of attack by the petitioner filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is the Working President of INTUC and close companion of the Circle Secretary of FNTO line staff and Class IV which is affiliated to INTUC and that the abovesaid Circle Secretary Sri P.C. Thomas is working as a Lineman at Telephone Exchange, Pala. It is further submitted that there were number of complaints of cheating against the said Circle Secretary Sri P.C. Thomas from the public. The 7th respondent was the disciplinary authority of the said Sri P. C. Thomas and he forwarded all the complaints to the Vigilance Wing of the Department for proper enquiry and a strong case had been made out against Sri P.C. Thomas. The cause for filing this original petition under the style of public interest litigation is the bitter animosity which Sri P.C. Thomas is having against the 7th respondent. Therefore it was forcefully argued that this original petition is lacking in bona fides and therefore this Court may not interfere in favour of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of the above argument, the counsel for the 7th respondent relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 : (AIR 1993 SC 892). The Supreme Court while dealing with the public interest litigation has observed as follows (at page 918 of AIR):
“109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.”
“110. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we are second to none in fostering and developing the newly invented concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard, yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are linked up, detenus expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. — are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either for themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation, and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Court never moves which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system”.
The learned counsel for the 7th respondent also placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court reported in Niyamavedi v. Raman Srivastava, 1995 (1) Ker LT 206. This Court made the following observations in the above case:
“19. Mr. Tulsi, the learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation, highlighted, the impropriety of the prayer made by the petitioner in the O.P. Petitioner wants the investigating machinery to implicate the first respondent as an accused in the espionage case and to arrest him. This prayer is made on the basis of the news items published by Indian Express and Mathrubhoomi. Since the case is one stated to be affecting the security of the nation, according to Mr. Tulsi, the Court may be justified in examining the records. But, if such a prayer is made by anyone on the basis of paper reports to get another arrested or implicated in an ordinary criminal case, can the Court direct the investigating officer to include the named person as an accused in the case? On this aspect, we are having no doubt in our mind that this Court in exercise of the power’s under Article 226 of the Constitution or for that matter no Court has power to direct the investigating officer to include a person as an accused in the case while the investigation is in progress. Before the police files the final report before Court, no Court can direct the investigating agency to implicate one as an accused and arrest him.”
The above observation was approved, according to the learned counsel for the 7th respondent, by the Supreme Court in ruling reported in Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Niyamvedi, (1995) 3 SCC 601 : (1995 AIR SCW 2212). Therefore it was argued that this original petition filed with lack of bona fides cannot be allowed because the petitioner has filed this Original Petition with ulterior motive and to wreak vengeance on the 7th respondent with the active support of Sri. P.C. Thomas.
4. It is when there is gross violation of fundamental rights or when there is invasion of basic human rights or when there is complaint of acts which shock the judicial conscience, then alone the Courts should countenande the public interest litigation freeing themselves from the procedural shackles for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the under-dog and the neglected. As early as in 1987 Khalid, J. in the Ruling reported in Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B., AIR 1987 SC 1109 has cautioned against the proliferation of public interest litigation in the following words (at page 1134):
“Today public spirited litigants rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to Courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If Courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of Public Interest Litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions.”
5. The counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the C.B.I. did not take up the investigation in view of the fact the local police has already taken steps in the matter.
6. Under these circumstances this Court must be careful enough in granting relief to the petitioner in the matter of directing the 6th respondent to investigate into the so-called allegations levelled by the petitioner. The attitude of the petitioner is further revealed by the two prayers he has made in the original petition. The second prayer in the Original Petition is for a direction to respondent No. 5 to place respondents 7 to 10 under suspension till the investigation of the entire incidents are completed by the 6th respondent and to take appropriate disciplinary proceedings against them. Another prayer in the Original Petition is for a direction to the second respondent to suspend the 5th respondent with immediate effect and to keep him under suspension till the investigation is over and to take appropriate disciplinary proceedings against him. In this connection it is also pertinent to point out that this Court was persuaded to pass an interim direction to the first respondent in C.M.P. No. 29137 of 1995 not to allow the second respondent to resume duty as Sub-Divisional Engineer, Telephones (out door) at Pala until further orders. Subsequently this Court after considering the various aspects of the matter vacated the above interim direction. Though the petitioner took up the matter in appeal, the order of the learned single Judge was not interfered with. All these attempts on the part of the petitioner lead to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner has approached this Court not with the idea of taking up the larger interest of the public or to streamline the telecommunication department in and around Pala. The main idea seems to be to settle the score with the 7th respondent. The Supreme Court has clearly stated in the Janata Dal case quoting eminent Judges who paved the way for the public interest litigation that the Courts must be careful in entertaining public interest litigation and that the doors of the Courts would not be ajar for such vexatious litigants. In Niyamavedi’s case also this Court categorically held that this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or for that matter no Court has power to direct the investigating officer to include a person as an accused in the case while the investigation is in progress. Before the police files the final report before the Court, no Court can direct the investigating agency to implicate one as an accused and arrest him. Therefore, I am also clear in my mind that no relief can be claimed or given to the petitioner in this Original Petition.
The Original Petition is therefore dismissed, but without any order as to costs.