It is for the High Court to proceed with the writ petition and decide the same, including the maintainability of the PIL, after hearing arguments on which point the orders were reserved. This honorable judgement was passed by Supreme Court of India in the case of Justice V. Eshwaraiah v. Union of India & Ors. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.6100 OF 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.
This special leave petition has been filed by the petitioner, a non-party, to the Writ Petition PIL questioning the order passed in the writ petition. The respondent, BC SC ST Minority Student Federation, a registered society under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 has filed the Writ Petition as the Public Interest Litigation praying to implement its guidelines in true spirit in order to prevent Covid-19 pandemic from spreading further, by its own machinery and State machinery in coordination to function effectively. The respondent, filed a preliminary counter affidavit, the locus of the Society to file the PIL was questioned. It was pleaded that PIL is not a genuine PIL having substantial public interest, that petition had been filed by a political person to political gain and to malign the High Court. The former Justice V. Eswaraiah had also submitted a complaint with the same allegations to the President of India referred herein against the Chief Justice. After retirement Justice had obtained a post retirement office and after achieving the said post retirement office, he wanted to support the State Government under the cover of BC association maligning the High Court. It was pleaded in the preliminary counter affidavit that filing of the petition is mala fide and to achieve the oblique intention.
The court opinioned that, “The High Court in its judgment as extracted above has clearly observed that the enquiry will not have any direct bearing on the issue involved in the main writ petition except to the extent of deciding the allegations made in paragraph 13 of the preliminary counter affidavit. High Court had closed hearing on the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the PIL and when I.A. Nos. 7 and 8 of 2020 were filed to reopen the writ petition, the question before the High Court was only with regard to maintainability of the writ petition.”
The Special leave petition was disposed of stating that, “We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have embarked on any other enquiry in the matter except to the maintainability of the PIL of the writ petitioner and the conversation filed before the High Court as well as the enquiry report sought was only with the above purpose. We have not issued notice in the special leave petition neither have entered into the merits of the writ petition, nor expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the Writ Petition, it is for the High Court to proceed with the writ petition and decide the same, including the maintainability of the PIL, after hearing arguments on which point the orders were reserved.”