http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  69 of 2006

PETITIONER: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/2007

BENCH: C.K. Thakker & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the National  Council for Civil Liberties through its President,  Shri  V.K. Saxena, against the Union of India, State of Gujarat,   State of  Madhya Pradesh, Smt. Medha Patkar, Narmada  Bachao Andolan, Shri Rahul Banerjee and the Director of  the Central Bureau of Investigation, inter alia, for  enforcement  of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under  Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution perpetually on  account of arbitrary inaction of the respondents and for  protection of a better right to live of the inhabitants of   Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.  On the basis  of the allegations made in the writ petition, the writ  petitioner has prayed for  the following reliefs:

(a)     "Issue appropriate writ order of direction  directing the respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 7  to investigate into the routing of foreign  funds  into the activities of the  respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of its  subordinate and supportive organizations  that have been  referred to in this petition  and that may be revealed during the  course of such investigation and its  utilization for purposes that  are found to  be seditious in nature and for purposes  that are against national interest and are  directed against smooth implementation  of projects of national importance and to  report to this Hon’ble Court within such  time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit  to  prescribe;

(b)     Issue appropriate writ order or direction   directing the respondent Nos.  2 and 3 to  place before this Hon’ble Court the status  report on  pending prosecutions lodged  against the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6  and their activists  along with that of the  support groups and organizations as  enumerated in this petition, and this  Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue such  appropriate directions upon receipt  of  such status report to ensure expeditious  disposal of pending investigation and/or  trials within such time period as may be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

found fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble  Court;

(c)     Issue appropriate writ order or direction  directing respondent  No.3 to place before  this Hon’ble Court a  specific action taken  report in view of the vigilance report/  Devas police report  after the  Mehendikheda firing incident in the State  of M.P. and to issue appropriate   directions on receipt of such status report  further directing such investigation to be  conducted by the  respondent No.7;

(d)     Issue appropriate  writ order or direction  directing respondent No. 7 to undertake  detailed investigation into the affairs of  the respondent Nos.  4,5, 6 and their  support groups as enumerated in this  petition  and more particularly in respect  of the activities in the nature of source,  supply and acquisition of arms,  explosives, detonators, gelatin sticks,  bullets and connections with naxal  organizations as well  as supply and free  usage of arms and explosives more  particularly with a view  to  thwart the  progress of projects of national  importance by terrorizing government  officials and locals, facts of which have  come to be revealed in the final report  submitted by SDO Bagli M.P. to  Additional Sessions Judge, Bagli District:  Devas;

(e)     Issue appropriate writ order or direction  directing the Central  and State  Government to evolve  a proper  mechanism for implementation a project  of  national importance where project  developer be directed to provide all  available information to the people of that  particular area regarding cost of project,  time schedule for implementation, why  the project is being implemented, its  likely impact on citizens (positive or  negative), how the Govt. plans to  compensate the citizens, who are likely to  be displaced or adversely  affected and  benefits after the implementation  etc. to  curb the misinformation spread by vested  interest.  Such information should be  freely and easily available to all.

(f)     Any other direction which this Hon’ble  Court may deem fit."   

2.      The prayers indicate that the writ petitioner is  basically  concerned with the alleged  acquisition  and  supply of  arms, explosives, detonators, gelatin sticks and  bullets by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and their  support groups naxalite organizations.  Further allegations  have been made with regard to supply and free usage of  arms and explosives with a view to obstructing the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

progress of projects of national importance. 3.      On 7th July, 2006, when the Writ Petition was  moved, this Court did not consider  it necessary to issue  notice to the respondent No.4-Smt. Medha Patkar and  respondent No.7-Director, Central Bureau of  Investigation. Presumably the Court was not entirely  convinced of the allegations against Smt. Medha Patkar  and hence  no notice was issued to  her.    Consequently,  at  the  time of final hearing of the writ  petition, no one  appeared on her behalf  or on behalf of the CBI while the  respondent No.6 \026Rahul Banerjee, appeared in person.   4.      When the matter was taken up for final hearing on  10th May, 2007, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior  advocate, appearing for the respondent No.5, raised a  preliminary objection that the writ petition was not  maintainable, particularly in the shape of  a Public  Interest Litigation, since no fundamental right of the  petitioner-organization had  been infringed from the facts  as disclosed in the writ petition and the  writ petitioner  had filed the writ petition out of sheer grudge against the  respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. She pointed out that apart  from Shri Saxena, the President of the National Council  for Civil Liberties, nobody else had been impleaded as  petitioner to lend support to the case made out in the  writ petition.  Ms. Indira Jaising urged that the petitioner  had no locus-standi to maintain the petition. 5.        A similar stand was taken on behalf of the Union  of India.   6.      After taking note of such objection, we decided to  hear the parties both  on the question of maintainability  of the writ petition  and  also on merits. 7       Mr. Amar Dave, learned advocate, appearing in  support of the writ petition, urged that Shri Saxena had  no  personal axe to grind against  the respondent Nos. 5  or 6  but he was actuated by  national interest to file the  writ petition to prevent the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from  obstructing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam  over the Narmada River.  Mr. Dave  urged that the lives of  thousands of people, not only in Gujarat, but also in   Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, had  been adversely  affected by the activities of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6  aimed at preventing the construction of the Dam. It was  urged that such action on the part of the respondent Nos.  5 and 6 and the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and  3 in containing such obstructive acts adversely  affected   the people of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh,  and amounted to violation of their fundamental rights  under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, thereby  giving rise to  a cause  of action for filing the writ petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution. 8.      As far as locus standi was concerned, Mr. Dave  pointed out that the Bombay High Court and  subsequently this Court had in the case  of  Olga Tellis  and Ors.  vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.,  (reported in  (1985) 3 SCC 545),  entertained writ  petitions  filed by a journalist and two pavement dwellers  for enforcing the fundamental rights of  pavement and  slum dwellers under Articles 21, 37, 39 (a)  and 41 of the  Constitution against their forcible eviction and the  removal of their hutments under the Bombay Municipal  Corporation Act, 1888.  Mr. Dave pointed out that this  Court made it clear that  writ petitions filed by Olga Tellis  and two others were maintainable since the right  to life  guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to  livelihood from which  they would be deprived if the slum

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

dwellers were evicted from their slums and pavement  dwellings, which would be unconstitutional.  9.      Mr. Dave also referred to the decision of this Court  in M/s.Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame  and Ors., reported in  (1990) 1 SCC 520, wherein  while  considering the provisions of Sections 20 & 21 of the  Urban  Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, this  Court also had occasion to consider  the width  and  ambit of Article  21 of the Constitution to include the  right to shelter.  It was observed that the right to life  would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to   clothing, the right to decent environment and reasonable  accommodation to live in.  The difference between the  need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to  be kept in view. 10.     Mr. Dave contended that those people who were  deprived of the benefits of the dam were being denied  their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and since  the petitioner-association was championing their rights,  the writ petition must be  held to be maintainable. 11.     Apart from the above, Mr. Dave submitted that the  respondent No.5 had, in fact, filed a writ application in  respect of the dispute which arose between the State of  Gujarat and  its neighbouring states in the matter of use,  distribution and control of the waters of the Inter  State  Narmada River, including the height of the Sardar  Sarovar Dam and the same had been  duly entertained  by this Court and orders and directions had been passed  therein.  There too, the question of maintainability had  been raised but the writ petition had been entertained  by  this Court upon  holding that  water is a basic  need for  the survival of human-beings and is a part of the right to  life and  human rights as enshrined in Article  21 of the  Constitution of India.  It was also observed that while the  destruction of trees on forest lands was undoubtedly  harmful, large dams also converted waste land into  agricultural land and made the area greener.   Consequently, large dams can also become   instruments  in  improving the environment.   12.     Coming to the merits of the writ petition, Mr. Dave  directed the major portion of his submissions against the  respondent  No. 6 with reference to  Khedut Mazdoor  Chetna Sangath which was alleged to be controlled by  him.  An attempt has been made to link the Narmada  Bachao Andolan with the Khedut Mazdoor Chetna  Sangath in order to establish a link between the  respondent No.4, Smt. Medha Patkar, and the  respondent No.6, Shri Rahul Banerjee.  Mr. Dave  submitted that large sums by way of foreign funds were  being received  by the respondent No.5 through its  support groups and the same was being misutilized  for  criminal activities such as procuring and providing arms  and ammunitions to those involved in the naxalite  movement.  Mr. Dave submitted that the allegations were  of a very serious nature and required investigation by the  CBI since the security of the nation was at stake.  It was   pointed out that there were several criminal cases  pending against the respondent No.6  who was a  supporter of the respondent No.5 \026Narmada Bachao  Andolan and  actively  participated in its activities. 13.        Mr. Dave submitted that not only was the  Respondent No. 5 an unregistered organization but that  since the last two decades an organized campaign had  been designed and directed by it under the garb of social  activism to oppose projects of national importance such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

as the Sardar Sarover Dam in Gujarat and the  Maheshwar, Omkareshwar and Indirasagar projects in  Madhya Pradesh.  Mr. Dave submitted that as a public  spirited citizen Mr. Saxena had filed the writ petition for  a direction upon C.B.I. to conduct an investigation into  the affairs of the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 on account  of the inaction of the other respondents. 14.     Appearing for the respondent No.5, Ms. Indira  Jaising, learned senior Advocate, strongly urged that  since none of the fundamental rights of the writ  petitioner-association had been adversely affected by the  Narmada Bachao Andolan and its activities, the writ  petition was not maintainable under Article 32 of the  Constitution.  Ms. Jaising urged that the writ application  was the result of a grudge nurtured by Shri Saxena  against Smt. Medha Patkar and in the process he had  roped in the respondent No.6 in order to show him to be  an associate of Smt. Medha Patkar. 15.     Ms. Jaising referred  to the counter affidavit filed on  behalf of the respondent No.5 to the writ petition and the  annexures thereto.  Referring to annexure R-3 of the  counter, she submitted that from the report it was quite  obvious that Shri V.K. Saxena had a personal grudge  against Smt. Medha Patkar which had motivated him to  file the writ petition. 16.     Reference was also made to annexure R-4 which   was a report  of an unprovoked attack on the respondent  No.4 and her followers  by the members of the Bharatiya  Janata Party Yuva Morcha, Congress  and National  Council for Civil Liberties  activists led by one Amit  Thakkar and Shri V.K. Saxena.  The demonstrators  hurled abuse at  Smt. Medha Patkar who was requesting  them not to  disturb the meeting.  When Smt. Mallika   Sarabhai tried to intervene, she too was  threatened. 17.     Ms. Jaising also referred to annexure R-6 to the  counter which  is a letter addressed to the trustees of the  Jansahyog Trust, Bombay, by both Baba  Amte and Smt.  Medha Patkar indicating that the money awards which  had been received by them were to be  used for charitable  purposes and not for the activities of the Narmada  Bachao Andolan.      18.       Ms. Indira Jaising submitted that Shri Saxena had  a pathological  hatred for Smt. Medha Patkar and her  activities so much so that even Smt. Mallika Sarabhai  was not spared in his relentless crusade against  Smt.  Medha Patkar and her friends. 19.       Ms.Jaising denied that the Narmada Bachao  Andolan had received any money from the McArthur  Foundation, USA,  as alleged in the writ petition.  She  submitted that the "Right of Livelihood  Award" and   "Goldman Foundation" had been jointly awarded  in  favour of  Narmada Bachao Andolan, Baba Amte and  Smt. Medha Patkar in 1991.  This is a prestigious award  given to individuals and organizations which  have  worked for the cause of  environmental justice.  Upon  receipt of the said award, a joint decision was taken by   the Narmada Bachao Andolan and  Baba Amte not to  accept the money received through   the award but to  create a trust in the name of Jan Sahyog Trust and the  entire award money was  deposited in favour of the trust  with the condition that the money would not be used for  any of  the activities of the Narmada Bachao Andolan.   Ms. Jaising  submitted that poison has been spread by  Shri Saxena as part of his campaign to denigrate  Smt.  Medha Patkar and her activities.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

20. Ms. Jaising then submitted that the respondent No.6  -Rahul Banerjee, had been introduced in the writ petition  only in order to show that he was involved in anti- national activities and that Smt. Medha Patkar and the  Narmada Bachao Andolan  had used him in their  attempts to obstruct the construction of the dam.  In the  process, Shri Saxena has also tried to suggest  that Smt.  Medha Patkar was involved in anti-national  activities  and was utilizing  foreign funds received by her in the   name of the Narmada Bachao Andolan to arrange for  purchase and supply of  guns and ammunitions to anti- national elements who were engaged in disrupting the  normal life of the citizens of India.  The respondent  No.6  \026 Rahul Banerjee has been made out to be a sympathizer  of the naxalite movement and was using his connection  with Smt. Medha Patkar to attain his objectives. 21.     Ms. Jaising submitted that such ridiculous and  absurd allegations merely demonstrate the extent of the  grudge nurtured by Shri Saxena against Smt. Medha  Patkar and his attempts to obstruct the lawful agitation  carried on by Smt. Medha Patkar to ensure that the  tribals who were being  displaced on account of   submergence  of the habitats  were duly  rehabilitated  and compensated for the trauma and shock experienced   by them on account of such submergence. 22.     Ms. Jaising forcefully urged that the writ petition  was not maintainable  and the stand taken  that  the  respondent No.5 had violated the petitioner’s  fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution,  was without basis and was liable to be rejected.  On  the  other hand, it was the  right of the displaced  persons  which had been affected in violation of  Article 21 of the  Constitution which was canvassed by the respondent  No.5.  Ms. Jaising submitted that neither  the State of  Madhya Pradesh nor the States of Gujarat and  Rajasthan, which were  the ultimate beneficiaries of the  Sardar Sarovar  Dam, had come forward to  question/challenge the activities  of  Smt. Medha Patkar  and  the  Narmada Bacaho Andolan.  Only Shri  Saxena  had, in his individual capacity as President of the  National Council for  Civil Liberties, filed the writ  application out of a   personal grudge.  According to Ms.  Jaising,  the writ petition  had not been filed in the public  interest and such grudge litigation had been deprecated  and discouraged by this Court.   23.     In  support of her submissions, Ms. Jaising firstly  referred to the decision of this Court in the case of   Subhash  Kumar  vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in  AIR 1991 SC 420, wherein  while considering the  maintainability  of a writ petition under Article 32 of the  Constitution, this Court observed that a petition under  Article 32 for the prevention of  pollution is maintainable  at the instance of  affected persons or even by a group of  social workers or journalists.  But recourse to proceeding    under Article 32 of the Constitution should be taken  by  a person  genuinely interested in the protection of   society on behalf of the  community.  Public Interest  Litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of  persons to  satisfy his or their personal grudge and  enemity.  If such petitions were entertained, it would   amount to abuse  of the process of the court. 24.     In this regard, reference was also made to the  decision of this Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs.  State of Maharashtra And Ors., reported in (2005) 1 SCC  590, wherein also the scope of  Article 226 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

Constitution  in entertaining  ’public interest litigation’  had been explained.  This Court observed that ’public  interest litigations’ were to be admitted  with great care  and for redressal  only of  genuine  public wrongs or  injury and not for the redressal  of private,  publicity-   oriented or political  disputes or other disputes not  genuinely concerned with public interest. 25.     Reference was also made to the decision of this  Court in the case of   Dr.B. Singh vs. Union of India &  Ors., reported in  (2004 ) 3 SCC 363 which had been  followed  in Dattaraj  Nathuji Thaware’s case (supra).   Several other decisions were also referred to by  Ms.Jaising in support of her submissions which are in  the same vein as those cited  above and will only amount   to multiplication of  decisions.   26.     Ms. Jaising submitted that this was a case of   suggestio falsi et suppressio veri (A suggestion  of  falsehood and suppression of truth) and the writ petition  was therefore  liable to be dismissed. 27.     The respondent No.6, Shri Rahul Banerjee, who  appeared in person, denied the allegations in the writ  petition which were directed mainly against him and  urged that the same had been made only to persuade the  Court into passing an order against Smt. Medha Patkar  and the respondent No.5.  He denied that the society  being run by him,  namely,  the Khedut Mazdoor Chetna  Sangath was engaged in any kind of  unlawful and/or  anti-national activities as alleged in the writ petition or at  all.  He submitted that he was not connected with the  Narmada Bachao Andolan  and the case of sedition under  Sections 121 and 121 A of the Indian Penal Code  had  been quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in  Criminal Revision No. 942/2003 by its judgment dated   26th April, 2004.  Shri Banerjee submitted that he was an   alumnus of the Indian Institute of Technology,  Kharagpur, and his association with Khedut Mazdoor  Chetna Sangath was to prevent exploitation  of tribals  and adivasis.  He submitted that in this regard the  Sangath had filed a  writ petition against the State of  Madhya Pradesh alleging harassment by police officers   in registering of FIRs, hand cuffing  and  locking up of   tribals in various police stations when they objected to  such exploitation.  The matter reached this Court which  observed that the Magistracy requires to be sensitised to  the values of  human dignity and to the restraint    on  power.  The Court also observed that the reports of the  CBI  to the Judicial Magistrate revealed the sordid  picture  and the sorrowful plight of public spirited men  whose desire was to prevent exploitation of the poor  adivasis.  Ultimately, directions were given to the CBI to  investigate  and register cases and prosecute the officers   however high or low in the hierarchy  of the  administration for their lapses.  Shri  Banerjee submitted  that the decision of this Court had been reported in JT  1994 (6) SC 60. 28.     Regarding the allegation of receipt  of illegal funds  by him and his wife Subhadra  Khaperde  and using the  same for inciting armed rebellions against the State, the  respondent No.6 submitted that the funds had been  received as fellowship grants from various bona fide  agencies for implementation of development projects.  All  the said funds had been properly utilized  for the  purposes for which  they had been granted and there  were supporting vouchers in support of the same which  had been duly certified by Chartered Accountants, copies

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

whereof had been marked as annexure R-9 to the  counter filed by the respondent No.6.  As to the funds  received as fellowship grants from the McArthur  Foundation, USA, the same were solely used for  improving the  reproductive   health and rights situation  of Bhil adivasi women and had no connection whatsoever  with the work of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5  nor were  they used to purchase arms with the intention of  staging   an armed rebellion against the State.  Shri Banerjee  added that the  Foundation is a  renowned   funding  agency having the  permission of the Union  Home  Ministry to make such grants in India.  It has funded  over a 100 NGOs in India, including the Self-  Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), set  up by the  Magsaysay awardee and former Rajya Sabha Member,  Elaben Bhatt.  Shri Banerjee submitted that  despite  repeated investigations into sources and  utilization of  these funds by the  Madhya Pradesh Police, the Union  Home Ministry   had found nothing untoward regarding  the acquisition and utilization of such funds. 29.     Shri Banerjee also referred to the affidavit filed on  behalf of the State of Gujarat in which it has been stated  that there are no criminal cases pending in the  State of  Gujarat  against the respondent Nos.4, 5, and  6 and the  one case involving the  manhandling of two officers of the  Gujarat Government while discharging their duty in  village  Barada in Madhya Pradesh was also  compromised and disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate  in March 2003.   30.     Shri Banerjee repeated  Ms. Jaising’s submissions  that the present litigation was the result of a grudge  harboured  by Shri Saxena against Smt. Medha Patkar  and an attempt had been made to  discredit her by  suggesting  that she was involved in anti-national  activities which were allegedly being carried out by the  respondent No.6 under the banner of Khedut Mazdoor  Chetna Sangath. 31.     Both the Union of  India  and the State of Madhya  Pradesh had little to add and they relied on the  affidavits  filed on their behalf in the proceedings.  In the counter  affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it has been  generally stated that  the Ministry of Home Affairs in  its  Foreign Contribution Regulation Act Division  had not  granted permission to the respondent No. 4 or certain  organizations  named in the writ petition to receive  foreign funds.  However, it has also been categorically  stated that  an inspection was carried out in terms of  Section 14 of the  Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act,  1976 into the books of accounts of  among others the  Narmada Bachao Andolan, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh in  2002 and the same did not reveal any instance of  violation of the aforesaid Act.  A similar enquiry had also  been conducted in 2000 and then also no such violation  had been  detected.  The said information was conveyed  to the Chief Minister of  Gujarat by  the  Minister of  State, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, by  letter dated 26th August, 2003.  The contents of the said  letter has been made  annexure R-1/1 to the affidavit  affirmed on behalf of the Union of India and reads as  follows:- "Kindly refer to your letter No.CMS/GO1/150  dated the 27th September, 2001 addressed to  the Hon’ble Dy. P.M. regarding  alleged  violation of Foreign Contribution (Regulation)  Act, 1976 by the functionaries of  Narmada

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Bachao Andolan ( NBA).

This matter was investigated in some detail  under the provision of the said Act.  The  accounts/records of the NBA and a number of  NGOs associated with it were inspected but no  specific instance of any violation of FCRA,  1976 was detected."

32.    In the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the State of  Madhya Pradesh, it has been stated that the  existing  laws were sufficient to take care of the reliefs claimed by  the writ petitioner and appropriate action  under the  existing laws had already been undertaken.  33.     Having heard the learned counsel  for the respective  parties and having considered  the materials on record,  we are of the view that although ordinarily in a case like  this a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution  would be maintainable, in the facts of this case the writ  petition does not call for any   interference by this Court.   The various decisions  cited by counsel on both sides  indicate in what circumstances public interest litigation   may be entertained by the Courts.  We share the same  views.  We are also  of the view that public interest   litigation may be entertained  when an issue  of great  public importance is involved, but not to settle  private  scores as was held in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware’s case  (supra).  Furthermore, in an application under Article 32  of the Constitution there must be an element of  infraction of one or the other fundamental rights   contained in Part III of the Constitution.      Although, the  writ petitioner has attempted to show that the writ  petition had been filed  for the benefit of the people of the  States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the  facts as sought to be projected clearly indicate that the  writ petition  has been filed out of grudge harboured   by  Shri Saxena against Smt. Medha Patkar.  Except for  vague allegations regarding receipt of foreign funds by  the respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and their alleged use for   subversive activities, none of the allegations have any  evidentiary value as they are  unsupported by any  evidence as such.  There is no material on record  to  show that foreign funds have, in fact, been received  by  the respondent No.5 or that the same had been  misutilized for subversive activities of an anti-national  character.  On the other hand, there is evidence to show  that certain monetary awards had been received jointly  by the respondent No.5 and Baba Amte which had been  vested in a trust which had no connection  with the  activities of the respondent No.5.  In fact, the writ  petition appears to have  been filed as a fishing exercise  to try and procure evidence against the said  respondent  Nos. 4, 5 and 6.  Having seen the annexures to the  counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5,  we are inclined to accept Ms. Indira Jaising’s  submissions that Shri Saxena had a private grudge  against  Smt. Medha Patkar which had motivated him to  file the writ petition and not  in the public interest as  claimed by him.   34.     The respondent No.6 has been introduced in the  writ petition to malign the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by  making allegations of subversive activities against the  respondent No.6 and trying to establish a link  between  the respondent No.6 and Smt. Medha Patkar  to  her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

discredit.  There is no direct evidence of any kind of  subversive activity allegedly engaged in by the Narmada  Bachao Andolan which could be said to be  anti-national.   On the other hand, the respondent No.5 appears to be  genuinely concerned with the rehabilitation of the tribals  and the other  habitats of the submerged areas in  keeping with the decision of this Court that the  rehabilitation programme should be completed before  submergence of the areas which were  inhabited by them. 35.     Although, the writ petition  has been shown to have  been filed to  protect the interest of the people  of the  three  States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan,  except for Shri Saxena  representing the writ petitioner  association, there is no other individual who has been  impleaded   as petitioner  to support such an argument.   Although, the writ petition is alleged to be in the nature  of a public interest litigation, the same appears to be a  ’private interest  litigation’ to discredit and diffuse the  agitation undertaken by the respondent No.5 for  rehabilitation  of  the displaced persons from the dam  site before submergence of their habitat. 36.     In our view, the materials in the writ petition  consist only of  vague allegations  without any proper  foundation.  No  case has therefore been made for a  direction  to the CBI to investigate into the said  allegations. 37.     Having regard to the  view taken by us we do not  intend  to separately deal  with the decisions cited on  behalf of the respective parties.

38.     The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs  assessed at Rs.5,000/-.