1993 (7) TMI 366 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) legitimacy and locus standi of the petitioner.
2. Admissibility and credibility of newspaper reports as evidence.
3. Allegations of illegality in the approval of housing schemes by Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.).
4. Allegations of bias and ulterior motives by public officials.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) legitimacy and locus standi of the petitioner:
The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming to act in public interest to highlight violations of law by public authorities. The Court scrutinized the petitioner's locus standi and found that the petitioner did not have any personal stake or direct involvement in the housing schemes. The relief sought was general and did not specify the public interest that would be served. The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need for bona fide intent and sufficient interest in PILs, rejecting the petition on grounds of being a "busy body" or "meddlesome interloper" without genuine public interest.

2. Admissibility and credibility of newspaper reports as evidence:
The petitioner based his allegations on news items published in the Rajasthan Patrika and Rashtradoot newspapers. The Court highlighted that newspaper reports are considered hearsay evidence and inadmissible unless corroborated by evidence aliunde, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu. The Court reiterated that the presumption of genuineness under Section 81 of the Evidence Act does not extend to the contents of newspapers, which remain hearsay in the absence of direct evidence from the reporter.

3. Allegations of illegality in the approval of housing schemes by Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.):
The petitioner alleged that the J.D.A. approved housing schemes for Subhash Sindhi Grah Nirman Samiti and Meena Colony Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti in violation of relevant rules and regulations. The Court examined the counter affidavits from the respondents, which provided detailed explanations and refuted the petitioner's claims. It was established that the approvals were granted following due process, including discussions and approvals in BPC-II meetings and compliance with Section 25(2) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act. The Court found no evidence to support the allegations of illegality or haste in the approval process.

4. Allegations of bias and ulterior motives by public officials:
The petitioner accused high-ranking officials of being "Banami" beneficiaries of the housing schemes, based on general public belief. The Court found these allegations to be flimsy and unsupported by any concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that mere assertions or vague statements are insufficient to prove bias or ulterior motives. The Court cited the necessity of proving such allegations with credible evidence, which was lacking in this case. The Court also noted the importance of not allowing PILs to be misused for personal vendettas or to settle scores with public officials.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed with costs, as the Court found the petitioner's claims to be unsubstantiated and lacking bona fide public interest. The Court underscored the need for self-imposed restraint in PILs and the importance of credible evidence in making allegations against public authorities.