V.K. Jhanji, J. (Oral)

1. This Public Interest Litigation is purported to have been filed by the J&K Public Grievance Forum through its Secretary-Amar Nath Bhardwaj son of late Pandit Kahan Chand. The allegations made in the petition are in regard to the mal-functioning of the Citizens Co-operative Bank Ltd.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the Registrar Co-operative Society has been requested time and again to pay attention to the allegations levelled against the Bank and investigate the same in order to check the financial irregularities of the public funds. The Registrar, Co-operative society has not taken notice of the allegations made by the petitioners regarding irregularities and mal-functioning of the Bank by its Chairman and Directors. Alongwith the petition, the Petitioner filed some newspaper cutting whereby it was reported that the Bank is a sick unit because of benami projects of the Director and cover up fraud committed by its Directors. In one of the newspaper heading is "Sacked Citizens Bank Directors alleges bunglings" and in other one, report has been made in regard to the revengeful attitude of the Managing Director of the Bank leading to the hampering of the functioning of the Bank and in one other paper reference is made that continuance of Managing Director is a threat to the Bank and challenge to the management and Co-operative movement, because, it is den of scams and swindles. The writ petitioner has also made a mention about the inquiry made by the Reserve Bank of India. However, at the time of hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Reserve Bank of India apart from saying it is a weak Bank has dropped the inquiry against the Bank.

3. The notice of the writ petition was served upon the respondent-Bank. The detailed reply has been filed by the respondent No. 4. In one of the preliminary objections, the respondent-Bank has stated that the present public Interest Litigation does not lie as neither any public interest is violated nor any public wrong is involved in the functioning of the Bank. It is stated that the petitioner who poses to, be saviour of the Bank has actually come to protect his own rights in the name of public interest. The respondent-Bank has stated that the petitioner Amar Nath Bhardwaj happens to be the Landlord of the Bank Branch Building situated at Vinayak Bazar, Jammu and right from the date when the building owned by him was taken on rent, he has been making the Complaints with a view to Pressurize the Management of the Bank for hike in rent and give concession in the rate of interest on the loan which was taken by him-from the Bank. It further stated that the Bank was not able to grant or extend such benefit and so he has filed the present petition seeking redressal of his grievances in the name of general public with sordid aim to pressurise the bank so as, to concede his illegal demands, The respondent Bank has denied the allegations in respect of the debts, excess spendings or mal-functioning of the Bank as alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondent-Bank has further stated that every Bank is audited in routine every year and the reports are furnished in respect of different heads and remedial measures, if any, are suggested. In regard to the allegations of the petitioner that the Registrar, Co-operative Society has not paid attention to the complaints made by the petitioner, it is stated that no representation was ever made to the Registrar, Co-operative Society for making any inquiry against the Bank. As regards the inquiry conducted by the Reserve Bank of India, the respondent-Bank has stated that the Reserve Bank of India was fully satisfied with the explanation tendered by the Management of the Bank but since it did not find any substance in the complaints, no further action whatsoever was taken by the Reserve Bank of India. Alongwith the reply, the respondent- Bank has enclosed certain letters written by the petitioner-Amar Nath Bhardwaj in regard to the building which has been let out to the Bank. The correspondence between him and the Bank shows that he has been demanding increase in rent and also reduction in the interest on the loan amount. The correspondence further shows that the Bank was to charge interest @ 23% but after considering the representation made by him, the interest was reduced to 17% The Petitioner was not satisfied with the reduction and claimed that the interests should be further reduced and should be charged w.e.f. the date the loan was granted and not from the date the rate of: interest was reduced. The Bank did not concede this demand of the petitioner. In fact, some of the correspondence relates to the period after the writ petition has been filed in this Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record of this case.

5. We are of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner has no public interest in the matter but has come to the Court for personal gain under the garb of public Interest Litigation.

6. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Municipal Workers Union (Regd.) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., AIR 2001 Delhi 68 in the context of Public Interest Litigation has held that in Public Interest Litigation, public interest must be real and the person or body of persons cannot invoke such litigation to further personal cause or enmity. Their lordships of Delhi High Court have observed as follows:-

"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 litigation" or politics interest litigation." There must be real And genuine public interest involved in the litigation and it cannot 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 bonafide 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 Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social Justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for auspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicants; (b) the prima facie correctness of nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (1) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (2) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motive, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance. It does not encroach upon, the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited, holymen. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty envasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of Justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good."

In Janta Dal v. B.S. Chowdhary & Ors., 1992(4) SCC 305 their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that only a person acting bonafide 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 the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Their lordships further observed that vexatious petition under, the colour of Public interest Litigation brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievances deserves rejection at the threshold.

In BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350 , the Supreme court after referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court relating to Public Interest Litigation observed and opined as under:-

"It will be seen that whenever the court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to Court due to some dis-advantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the Courts. Public Interest Litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a Court at Law, but a Public Interest Litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot perse be on behalf of the poor and the down trodden, unless the Court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the Court."

7. From the above observations of the Supreme court and Delhi High Court, it is clear that the parameters of the Public Interest Litigation have been clearly defined. No one can be allowed to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the name of the Public Interest Litigation unless the purpose is real and genuine.

8. In this case the correspondence between the petitioner and the Bank reveals that the petitioner has been asking the Bank time and again to increase the rent of the building and interest on the loan be also reduced and charged from the date the loan was given. Since the demand of the petitioner was not conceded in its entirety the petitioner has filed the present petition under the garb of the Public Interest Litigation so as to pressurise the Bank to concede his demands. The Bank is a Co-operative society registered under the J&K Co-operative Society Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act).

9. Under the, a complete procedure has been provided with regard to the audit, inquiry and inspection by the Registrar or by any his authorised person regarding the working and functioning of the Bank. Section 58 of theprovides that in case the result of the audit discloses any defects in the working of the Co-operative Society, the Registrar can make an order directing the Society or its officers to take such actions as may be specified in the order within the time mentioned therein to remedy the defects disclosed in the audit.Under Section 59 of the Act, the Registrar is empowered to hold inquiry on his own or on an application of the majority of the community or not less than one-third of the members of the Society, regarding the working and financial condition of the Cooperative Society. Section 60 of thedeals with the inspection of the books of a Co-operative Society, and under Section 62 of the Act, if in the course of an audit, inquiry inspection or the winding up of a Co-operative Society, it is found by the Registrar, that any person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of such Society or who is or at any time be an officer or an employee of the Society has made any payment contrary to the, the rule or the bye-laws or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the Society by breach of trust or, wilful negligence or has mis-appropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, then the Registrar is empowered to make an order, requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest at such rate or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such extent as he may consider just and equitable.

10. It is crystal clear from the aforementioned provisions of the that the is a complete Code with regard to the matters raised in the writ petition and if any one was aggrieved with the functioning of the Bank, the matter would have been taken with the Registrar Co-operative Society. The petitioner in the garb of Public Interest Litigation cannot be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India for his personal gains. The petition being vexatious and frivolous deserves to be dismissed and the same accordingly dismissed. For wasting the valuable time of the Court the petitioner is liable to pay the costs which are assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited within three months in the Advocates Welfare Fund Failing which the respondent Bank is directed to deposit the costs of Rs. 10,000/- in the Advocates Welfare Fund and deduct the same from the rent which may accrue to the petitioner from the building which is on rent with the respondent-Bank.

11. We however, make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not mean that acts of omission and commission, if any, committed by the Managing Director or Directors in regard to the functioning of the Bank have been condoned.