In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharash Samiti v. State of U.P.

, ((1990) 4 SCC 449), Sabyasachi

Mukharji, C.J. observed: (SCC p.452, para 8)“

While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to
ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused
creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental
rights being considered by the court.”

In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, ((1991) 1 SCC 598) it was observed as follows:

“Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to

satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32, are
entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy
remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be
enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in
the garb of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal
proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of
persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on
account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must approach this Court for the
vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of
vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of this Court to
discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed
or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation”.

It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding
of PIL will alone have as 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”.

19.Publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement.–(1)When the

appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under sub-
section (2)of section 15, that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall
be made to that effect, along with a declaration of an area identified as the ―resettlement area‖ for
the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, under the hand and seal of a
Secretary to such Government or of any other officer duly authorised to certify its orders and
different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land
covered by the same preliminary notification irrespective of whether one report or different
reports has or have been made (wherever required)
21. Notice to persons interested.–(1)The Collector shall publish the public notice on his website and
cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the
Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and
rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him.

‘Eminent domain’ is right or power of a sovereign State to appropriate the private property within
the territorial sovereignty to public uses or purposes. It is exercise of strong arm of government to
take property for public uses without owner's consent. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is
an attribute of sovereignty and essential to the sovereign government. (Words and Phrases,
Permanent Edition, Volume 14, 1952 (West Publishing Co.,).

30. The power of eminent domain, being inherent in the government, is exercisable in the public
interest, general welfare and for public purpose. Acquisition of private property by the State in the
public interest or for public purpose is nothing but an enforcement of the right of eminent domain.

Kodanad Estate v.The Principal Secretary

In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware a State of Maharashtra, (2005) I SCC AIR 2005 SC 540 the Court
observed the attractive brand name of public intrest Litigation should not be used for suspicious
products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and
publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above.Coast must be careful to see
that a body of persons or member of the public who approached the Court is acting bona fide and
not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The
Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who
monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest Indulge in the pastime of meddling
with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motive, and try to bargain for a good
deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold,
and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

In Malik Bros. v. Narendra Dadhich, the Supreme Court clarified beyond doubt that standing in PIL is
to be judged keeping in view the purpose of the petition. The purpose of the petition should be the
betterment of society and not individual benefit, so that this strategy is not allowed to degenerate
into personal, publicity or political interest litigation. According to the court, the real purpose of PIL
is a 1) vindicated of the rule of law; 2) facilitating effective access to justice to socio-economic
weaker sections of society; or 3) meaningful realisation of fundamental rights. In other words, a PIL
petition can be entertained for redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting socio-
economic rights of weaker sections, and vindicating public interest. In this case, a petitioner had
purchased a land by auction but as he failed to deposit the amount as stipulated.

13 Procedure

As discussed i

applicable