2021 INSC 0608 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO . 695 of 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 11469 OF 20 20) SH AIKH ANSAR AHMAD MD. HUSAIN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHAR AS H TRA & O RS. ...RESPOND ENT( S) WITH CIVIL AP PEAL NO .696/ 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12501 OF 20 20 ) WITH CRL. APPEAL NO .1157/ 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C RL. ) NO. 6081 OF 20 20 ) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO .700 /2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP ( C ) NO. 15628 OF 20 20 ) WI TH CIVIL A PPEAL NO .69 9/2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP ( C ) NO. 1562 6 OF 20 20 ) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO .698/ 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP ( C ) NO. 14578 OF 20 20 ) WITH 2 CRL. A PPEAL NO .1158/ 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP ( C RL. ) NO. 6711 OF 20 20 ) WI TH CIV IL APPEAL NO . 697 /2021 (ARISING OUT OF S LP (C ) NO. 12506 OF 20 20 ) WITH CRL. APPEAL NO .1156/ 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C RL ) NO. 5113 OF 20 20 ) WITH CRL. APPEAL NO .604 /2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C RL ) NO. 511 4 OF 20 20 ) WITH CRL. APPEAL N O . 605 /2021 (ARISI NG OUT OF SLP (C RL ) NO. 4516 OF 20 20 ) WITH CRL. APPEAL NO .603 /2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C RL ) NO. 773 OF 20 21) J U D G M E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave granted in all the petitions. The appeals were heard with consent of co unsel ap pearing for the parties to these proceedings. 2. The grie vance of the appellants in these batch of appeals is with respect to a common judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay 3 High Court. 1 In the criminal public interest litigation , the respo ndent s (origina l writ petitioners, hereafter “PIL petitioners” ) sought directions to the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Housing and Urban Development Authority ( MHADA ) and state officials to initiate criminal proceedings against the res ponsibl e officers and office bearers of Municipal Council , Naldurg (hereafter “ m unicipality”) and concerned contractors for misappropriation of government funds in implementation of the housing scheme in the municipality . Some appellants had filed criminal petiti on s, opposing the criminal pr oceedings, which w ere disposed of . 3. The PIL petitioners claimed to be social activists and former Councillors of the municipality who were involved in social activities, reforms and reconstruction of the socie ty which included run ning a library (Lokmanya Book Library at Nal durg ). They had also organized various camps like literacy camp for illiterate people, chalice (Panpoi) at public place s during summer season , etc. 4. The Union of India implemented the Inte grated H ousing and Sl um Development Programme ( IHSDP ), through th e State Government, under the "Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission" (hereafter “the Mission” ) f or provid ing basic services to the urban poor including security 1 dated 27.06.2019 in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 6/ 2018, with Publi c Interest Litigation No. 70/2014 and Criminal Application Nos. 2075, 2091 and 2107/ 2019. 4 of tenure of afford able pri ces, improved h ou sing, water supply, sanitation and ensur ing delivery through convergence of other existing universal services of the government for education, health and social se curity . T he M ission also aimed to ensure that the urban poor we re pr ovided h ousing . The scheme app lies to all cities/towns under the Mission. The guidelines for Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) and IHSDP we re i ssued in December 2005 ; pursuant to which , the state government appointed urban local bodie s as nodal agenc ies. In this case, MHADA is the nodal agency. 5. In terms of a g overnment resolution dated 03.02. 2009, the construction cost for e ach dwel ling house unit w as ₹ 80,000/ -. The minimum floor area of such dwelling house was to be 25 sq. m etr es at a minimum, with two rooms, a kitchen and a toilet bathroom. The funds for implementing the said scheme were in the ratio of 80:20 (between the Central Government and the S ta te Government -Urban Local Bodies ). Further, beneficiar ies under the scheme had to contribute a minimum 12% , and in case of reserved category the contribution was to be 10%. The nodal agenc y designated for implementation of the said sc heme was responsible for inviting proposals from urban local bodies and thus, R espondent Nos. 3 and 6 – which are the nodal agencies - were responsible for and ha d control over implementation of the scheme 5 with in the state government . Naldu rg in Osmanabad d istrict wa s include d under the scheme of IHSDP for providing houses to the poor people. 6. Pursuant to the scheme , a detailed project report was prepared , in terms of which 1206 houses for the poor were to be constructed. 737 beneficiarie s belonging to re served category and 469 from general category were identified as beneficiaries of the project . The cost of each house was fixed at ₹ 1,00,551/ -; the total cost of the proje ct was fixed at ₹ 20,69,04,514/ -, o f which cost for construction was ₹ 16,08,91,396/ - and ₹ 4,11,17,000/ - was the cost towards infrastructure. The municipality published a tender notice 2. The estimated cost of the w ork in the tender was ₹ 15,08,91,396/ - and the time stipulated for completion of construction of 1206 dwelling units was 18 calend ar months , including the monsoon season. Though the last date for opening of tender bids was 22 .09. 2008, the municipality did not wait t ill that date and the offers were placed before its special general meeting held on 20 .09. 2008. R espondent No. 8 ’s tender - being the lowest - was to be accepted and work order was to be issued in its favour after accepting their security deposit. O n 22 .09 .2008 formalities for execution of lease agreement between the s tate and the municipality , leasing lands at 2 In the "Daily Sakal" , in its issue dated 26.08.2008. 6 Survey Nos. 29 and 236 (measuring 20 hect ares and 20 ares ) for implementation of the scheme , were completed. The muni cipality issued the wor k order on 07.10 .2008 and the same day an agreement was entered into between the municipality and the private respondent; the municipality released 12% of the total cost, i.e., ₹ 1,44,00,000/ - as mobilization advance to Respondent No. 9 on 20 .12. 2008. 7. The PIL petitioners alleged that though in terms of the contract, Respondent No. 9 had to construct 1206 house units within 18 months, as on the date of filing of the litigation it had constructed only 30 units. They alleged that the quality of work carrie d out by Respondent No. 9 wa s very poor and the officials ( i.e. MH ADA, municipality, etc .) did not inspect or supervise the work , and did not submit the quarterly reports as required under the scheme. While MHADA had issued notices to the municipality from time to time directing it to submit quarterly progress report, the latter had not compl ied . C ontrary to the directions of the central and state governments , the municipality diverted the funds meant for the said development project, for other works. It wa s submitted that despite the requi rement that the w ork of infrastructure be carried out only after completion of 50% of construc tion of dwelling house units, Res pondent No. 7 strai ght away allotted the work of infrastructure in fa vour of Respondent No. 10 prior to achieving such a stage of 7 construction and without invi ting any intend ers f rom the cont ractors au thorized by MHADA . Various irregularities, such as higher fixation of price of dwelling house, i.e., ₹ 1,00,551/ - instead of ₹ Rs. 80,000/ -, failure to complete the project , and various other omissions were allege d. The PIL petitioners also relied on reports dated 04 .11 .2018 and 15 .03 .2012, respectively. 8. After considering the pleadings of the PIL petitioners, and the official respondents, the court , o n 02 .04 .20 19 issued the following directions: "The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, shall convene a meeting of Collector, Osmanabad and other officers including technical persons from MHADA, who is acting as a Nodal agency, the Ch ief Office r of the Municipal Council, Naldurg, within a period of four weeks from today and shall appraise this Court by filing an affidavit as regards the steps he propose to ta ke in the matter of implementing the scheme and in question; in addition to lo oking into the irregularities and action to be initiated against the defaulters. Let this exercise be completed by June 17, 2019, by filing an affidavit by the Divisional Commiss ioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad." . 9. Pursuant to the above order, th e Division al Commissioner filed his affidavit inter alia stating that for proper action , by order dated 05.04. 2019 , he ha d constituted a committee under the chairmanship of 8 the Chief Officer of the MHADA, along with the other four members 3 for spot inspect ion and to su bmit a status report regarding implementation of the scheme and other related information. He deposed also that the said committee submitted its report on 20 .04 .2019 listing several illegalities and irregularities connected with the implemen ta tion of the scheme, and proposed remedial action. It was stated that the committee suggested that since both the schemes i.e., IHSDP and Basic Services to Urban Poor ha d end ed on 31 .03. 2017, the unallotted houses constructed under t he said sche me may be ma de available under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY) in view of the G.R . dated 25 .09. 2019 . It was further suggested that - a) 155 houses constructed by the municipality require d minor repairs, after su ch repair s they could be all otted to the original eli gible benefic iaries under the provisions of G.R. dated 25 .09. 2018. b) 45 houses needing major repairs to be allotted to eligible beneficiaries under the said G.R. as per the scheme. c) 100 houses constructed at Vasant Nagar that co uld not be r epaired were to be demolis hed . After preparing the new report under the PMAY, houses were t o be constructed and allotted to the eligible beneficiaries under the scheme . 10. The affidavit also referred to a meeting of officials on 22 .04 .2019 conducted pur suant to direct io ns of the court, where in the committee ’s 3 a) Regional Deputy Director Municipal Administration, Officer of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, b) Exe cutive Engineer, MHADA Aurangabad, c) Assistant Director, Reconciliation, Office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, d) Accounts Officer, Municipal Administration, Office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad 9 report was considered, after which the Divisional Commissioner issued the following directions: i) The Collector, Osmanabad to conduct the technical valuation of the work done under her supervision and submit a re po rt regarding work cons truction of h ouses and basic amenities along with qualit y. For th is purpose , the Commissioner constituted a committee chair ed by the Executive Engineer , MHADA under the overall supervision of the Collector, Osmanabad. ii) If financi al irregularities had oc curred , amount s were to be recovered from the person (s) responsible for it. iii) After receipt of the technical committee’s report , action against th os e responsible for irregularities wa s to be taken as per law. 11. The C ollector, O sm anabad submitted her r eport dated 03 .06 .2019, which stated that direction s were issued to the Chief Officer of the m unicipal ity to recover the excess amount paid to the contractors , to black list them for Gov ernment work , and also to initi ate criminal pr os ecution against th os e who committed irregularities. The Chief Officer of the municipality was also directed to allot houses that could be repaired, in terms of prescribed procedure, under the PMAY and report compliance. 12. After taking no te of another affidavit of the C ommiss ioner’s dated 12 .06 .2019, the High Court disposed of the public interest litigations on 27 .06 .2019 directing the respondents to take steps in light of the reports, 10 and action outlined in para graph 8 of t he affidavit, “to its logical end” as exped itiously as possible. The Divisional C ommissioner of Aurangabad was also to decide whether the scheme could be complete d “by taking recourse to any other housing scheme” floated by the central or state government. The court held that there was no reason fo r it to ent ertain any cr iminal applications, and accordingly rejected them. Contentions of partie s 13. Mr. Shyam Divan, senior counsel for one of the appellants , argued that the operative part of the impugned ju dgment was pronounced on 27.06 .2019; howeve r, the reas ons were uploaded on 05.10.2020 after a report was called from the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court at its Aurangabad Bench. The time gap between the pronouncement and the operative part of the re asons is a year and over three months. In view of the recent judgments of this Hon’ble Court in Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors .4, Oriental Insu rance Co. Ltd. v. Zaixhu Xie & Ors .5 and Sudipta Chakrobarty & Anr. v. Ranaghat S .D. Hospital & Ors. 6, the impu gned order re quires to b e set aside and the matter be remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration , by further direction for addition of the appellants as respondent s. 4 AIR 2020 SC 5758 5 (202 0) SCC Onli ne SC 1145 6 AIR 2021 SC 3344 11 14. It was argued by counsel for the appellan ts, that the High Court fell i nto error in failing to notic e that neither were the appellants party respondents in the Public Interest Litigations , nor were they heard. That fact ipso facto is suffici ent to set aside the impugned order since it is in viol ation of the principle s of nat ural justice. Had the a ppellants been heard, they would have showed the High Court that they were in no way concerned with the alleged offence. In this regard, reliance i s placed on State of U.P. & Anr. v. Satya Narain Kapoor (dead) by Lrs. & Ors 7. Counse l emphasized that the la ck of opportunity to be heard, has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellants as the respondents have construed the impugned judgment as directions, requiring them to initiate criminal proceedings, w hich have in fact been acted u pon . It was u rged that s ome of the appellants were constrained to seek anticipatory bail, which was refused, leading them to approach this court. In this regard, learned counsel were at pains to argue that the first informatio n report (FIR) was filed on 02 .12 .2019 as a direct con sequence of orders of the court made on 16. 11.2019 and 21.11.2019. 15. It was argued that the petition s which led to the impugned judgment are an instance of misuse of public interest litigation. It was highlighted that the petition ers before the High Cour t were politically 7 (2004) 8 SCC 630 12 motivated individuals. In fact , not a single beneficiary from the housing scheme came forward to allege illegalities in the scheme. Therefore , filing of a criminal public interest l itigation , contempt petition e tc. clearly sh owed that such legal action was motivated by mala -fides and were politically malicious . Therefore, it was incumbent upon the High Court to follow the guidelines laid down by this court in the case of State of Utt ar anchal v. Balwant Singh Chau fal & Ors 8. 16. It is urg ed that the appellants cannot be accused of committing any illegality, since clause 20 of the tender document stipulate s the defect liability period to be 60 months , for civil work. The public interest lit igati ons were filed after the defect liabili ty peri od , which clearly point ed to ulterior motive of the PIL petitioners. Counsel underlined the fact that neither the municipality, nor the government had initiated any legal or civil act ion for recovery of any amounts, from the ap pel lan ts. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment, inasmuch as it gave undue credence to a report furnished to the C ommissioner, is in error of law. 17. The state and MHADA argue that an Audit Committee wa s formed to audit the funds released for BSU P/I HSD P scheme pursuant to its inspection under the Mission . The Report of the committee was submitted on 19.11.2014. It stated that funds were released by 8 (2010) 3 SCC 402 13 MHADA/ state government to the municipality for the sai d scheme on 17.09.2014 and 18.09.2014. A to tal of ₹ 9,29,17,000/ - was made available to the municipality through Aurangabad Board by MHADA for the IHSDP Program. Of this fund , a payment of ₹ 1,44,00,000/ - was given to the Respondent No.11 towards mobilis ation advance and the entire amount was late r r eco vered from the RA Bills . 18. It was highlighted that out of the fund of ₹ 9,29,17,000/ - received from the central government , recovery from beneficiaries and interest accrued aggregated to ₹10,25,62,318/ -. The municipal council spent ₹ 9,43,33,55 3/ - and t he balance left wa s ₹ 82,28,765/ -. In terms of the standards set by the central government , expenditures wer e to be made as per the share of beneficiaries and share of the council. However, the entire amo unt w as spent from the funds received fro m t he central and state government . It was found that for the construction of 302 tenements, ₹ 3,03,51,000/ - (₹ 1,00,500 each) was to be spen t in total but actually ₹ 5,75,47,141/ - was spent. The recovery from ben eficiaries w as to be made ; yet recoveries we re mad e only from 40 beneficiaries. 19. It was submitted that d uring spot visit s (on 17 and 18 September 2014 ) of the tenements, it was found that construction had long since stopped . It was also found that th e municipality had undertaken the constru cti on of 302 tenements in five slum areas. The implementation 14 period ended on 31.03.2015 and it was not possible to meet the deadlines. The external works were complete. The committee advised the municipality to allot the tenements immediately because o f loss du e to lack of security and non -allotment damage. 20. The responde nts submitted that though work had stopped for over many years , yet amounts were withdrawn from these accounts throughout the year s, leading t o the inference that funds were utilized els ewher e. Further, submitted counsel, it was found in the spo t inspection and joint measurement from a period of 02.05.2019 to 04.05.2019, that out of 1206 tenements, 302 were complete houses and 26 were incomplete houses ( in Vasant Nagar external plaste r fo r 8 tenements was not done). The DPR consist ed of cement c oncrete road, gutters, water supply, electrification and was inspected in terms of the provisions and actual work done. The inspection was done using co re cutters, digging, etc. at various pla ces. It w as found that thickness of roads was less than quoted in the estimates and bill books. In Shivkarwadi, excess work was done beyond the DPR map , the payment for which was already made . The layer of seal coa t was not found. Essential connections were not made to external electrification. Water pipelines laid down in Vasant Nagar, Filter and Shivkarwadi colonies were not connected with the OHR, and bec ame useless. The thickness of 15 slabs was uneven at some pl aces. It was found that a compliance re port was also not made available for the recommendations made from time to time by M/s. SGS India Private Ltd, Hyderabad, a third party , for inspection. 21. It was urged that valuation of work was made in the Inquir y Report after necessary inspection and join t mea surements. T here was a discrepancy between the amount paid to the contractor, tenement and external amenities wise as per the Measurement Book , and the amount calculated as per actual site condition during t he joint measurement on 02.05.2019 to 0 4.05. 2019. The observations made by the technical team, show ed that the m unicipal council made an excess payment of ₹ 2,43,79,017/ - to the contractors as compared to the work done. Out of this, an excess amount of ₹ 1,52,81,246/ - was allegedly paid to M/s. Minar Constructions, Latur and ₹ 90,97,771/ -, allegedly to Shri Sanjay Sudhakar Rajhans, Latur. 22. It was argued that the report stated that in terms of the government resolution dated 25.06.2007 for IHSDP, the municipality implement s the project, and is tasked with the responsibility to prepare project repor ts, execute the tripartite MOA with DPR and to select the beneficiary . The municipality also hand s over possession and discharges all responsibilities. M/s. Saya Engineers, Latur was appointed as the 16 Project Management Consultant (PMC) and entrusted w ith recording works done in M easurement B ook, verification of the day -to -day work and givin g technical advice. The re was dereliction of duties by public officials and the PMC , by not paying the contractor s for the actual work done. The City Engineer too was responsible for verifying the measurements made by the PMC and had to attest it, but failed to do so in this case . The Chief Officer of the municipality , wa s also responsible as he failed to recor d his opinion before clearing the bills. The accountant’s signature was not found on the bills in the Measurement Bo oks along with the necessary endorsement. The committee suggested that completed houses be allotted to the original eligible beneficiaries under the PMAY scheme , houses which cannot be repaired be demolished , and a new DPR under the PMAY scheme be prepare d for construction of houses . 23. It is urged that i n the meeting hel d on 22.04.2019 (comprising of the Collector Osmanabad, Chief Officer MHADA, Chief Officer Municipal Council Nal durg and other s) se veral actions were proposed , such as technical valuati on of the work done to as certain if there were any financial irregularities ; determining amount to be reco vered from the responsible person(s) and action to be taken against the person(s) found responsible for irregularities ; among others . In light of the report dated 17 03.06.2019 f rom the technical team, the Collector Osmanabad directed the Chief Officer, M unicipal Council, Nal durg, to recover the excess amount paid to the contractor s, and blacklist them from Gov ernmen t work, to ini tiate criminal prosecution again st the person(s) who had committed the ir regularities , and lastly allot the repairable houses as per PMAY . A compliance report w as to be submitted. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad by his letter dated 11.06.2019 dire cted the Collector to take steps for repairing houses which were in repairable condition to be allotted to the eligible beneficiaries under PMAY and to demolish houses which are not in repairable condition . A new DPR plan was to be prepared under PMAY sche me for c onstruction of hous es and the ir allotment to eligible persons. Counsel submitted that these facts are a matter of record, and cannot be disputed. In light of these materials, the authorities lodged the FIR, which led to initiation of criminal proce edings. No doubt, it would appear that those p roceedings were prompted by the judgment, and the initiation of contempt proceedings. Yet, the question of quashing the FIR does not arise, because it is based on allegations of serious illegalities, that canno t be ove rlooked. Analysis and conclusions 24. The appellants who have approached this court, were all involved as persons or authorized individuals, acting on behalf of entities that 18 were awarded the contract of construction and completion of the housin g units , pursuant to the sc heme, wh ich was to be implemented within 60 months . The spot inspection report dated 24.05.2019, alleges that the appellants had not performed their task. In the case of the project consultant - who is one of the appellants - it was of not recording the w orks done in the M easurement B ook properly, and causing excess payment to the contractors. PIL No. 70 /2014 was filed against the project contractor, officers and office bearers of Municipal Council. During the pendency of th at petiti on, criminal PIL No. 6/20 18 was filed by the two Municipal Councillors against the contractor, officers and office bearers. The High Court disposed of the two public interest litigation s and directed the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to take steps i n the backdrop of var ious reports submitted to him, as refer red to in the Affidavit -in -Reply dated 12.06.2019 filed by h im . 25 . The first grievance of the appellants is that the reasoning for the impugned judgment was given and published long afte r its o perative portion was pron ounced. The operative portion of the judgment was pronounced on 27.06.2019. The reasons were published on 05.10.2020. It is clear that the High Court’s order, against which an aggrieved litigant has a right to approach this court, under special leave j uris diction, should contain reasons, without which it would be well -nigh impossible 19 to exercise that right of seeking special leave, and in many cases, urged ad -interim and, possibly, ex -parte relief. The appellants’ reliance on Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr (su pra) , Oriental Insurance C o. Ltd. (supra) and Sudipta Chakr obarty (su pra) and the other two judgments, cited earlier, is warranted. In this case, the High Court incontestably should have furnished the reasons for the operativ e portion of its order. To that extent, the appellant s’ grievance is justif ied. This court is how eve r reluctant to hold – having regard to the circumstances and the facts on the record - that the absence of reasons struck at the legitimacy of the impugned judgment. It caused prejudi ce no doubt, to the extent that the appellants w ere unable to furnish gro unds on which their special leave petitions were based. However, that prejudice stood off -set with the interim orders of this court, which recognized the pi quancy of the situation, an d directed stay of further action against the ap pellants. In view of thes e special circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the impugned order should not be set aside. However, the High Court’s conduct in not furnishing re asons, either at the time o f pronouncement of the ope rative part of the jud gment, or before the comm encement of the next working day (of the court) is strongly deprecated. 26. The appellant’s next challenge to the impugned judgment is the ground that the public interest litigation was motivated, and that they 20 were not parties. I t is urged that consequen tly the High Court should not have issued the impugned directions. Reliance is placed on decisions of this court, to the effect that so called public intere st litigations, motivated by malice and personal ill will, should not be en tertained. 27. There is no doubt, that public interest litigation is meant to be entertained, for bona fide causes, and not to aid either misguided individuals in their quest for p ublicity, or for wreaking v endetta on public officials or institutions. Thi s court had (undoubtedly before the era of public interest litigation) emphasized the need to keep out “ busybodies ” who “ have no interest in matters of public inter est ” in Jasbhai D esai v . Roshan Kumar 9 and s tated, about such individuals, that “They masqu erade as crusaders for ju stice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico , though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with th e judicial process either by force of habit or f rom improper motives. Oft en, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or chea p popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than s pooking the wheels of admin istration . The High Court should do well to reje ct the applications of su ch busybodies at the threshold. ” 9 (1976 ) 3 SCR 58 21 28. In Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation v Union of India & Ors .10 this court had underlined the purpose of pu blic interest proceedings, and observed as follows : "29. Why are the Action Plan and these direction s necessary? We seem to be forgetting the power of Public Interest Litigation and therefore need to remind ourselves, from time to time, of its efficacy in providing social justice. M any years ago, this Court noted in People's Unio n for Democratic Rights v Union of India ( 1982) 3 S CC 235 that :(SCC p. 240, para 2) : "2...Public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing t he right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordina ry litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, i gnorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredres sed. That would be destr uctive of the rule of law which forms one of the essential elements of public interest in any democratic form of Government." A litt le later in the judgment, i t was said: (SCC pp.242 43, para 3) "3....Milli ons of persons belonging to the deprived and vuln erable sections of humanity are looking to the courts for improving their life conditions and making basic human rights meaningful f or them. They have been cry ing for justice but their cries have so far been in the wilderness. They have been suffering inju stice silently with the patience of a rock, without the strength even to shed any tears." 30. The advantage of public interest litig ation is not only to empowe r the economically weaker sections of society bu t also to empower those s uffering from social dis abilities that may not necessarily of their making. The widows of Vrindavan (and indeed 10 (2017) 16 SCC 780. 22 in other ashrams) quite clearly fall in this category of a socially dis advantaged class of our society. 31. Placing emp owerment in perspective, this Court noted in Stat e of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402 that (at SCC p. 427, para 43) the first phase of public interest litigati on concerned itself with pr imarily with the protection of the fundamental r ights under Article 21 of the Constitution of "the marginalized groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this Cour t or the High Courts." We m ay add - the socially underprivileged groups. Th ese are the people who ha ve no real access to justice and in that sense are voiceless, and these are the people who need to be empowered and whose cause needs to be championed by th ose who advocate social jus tice for the disadvant aged. 32. This recognition formed the basis of the decision of this Court in Delhi Jal Board v National Campaign for Dignity & Rights of Sewerage & Allied Workers (2011) 8 SCC 568 wherein providing succour t o the deprived sections of society was recognized as a "constitutional duty " of this Court. Referrin g to several judgments delivered by this Court, it was observed: (SCC p. 590, para 31) "31. These judgments are a complete answer to the appellant's object ion to the maintainability of the writ petition f iled by Respondent 1.What the High Court has done b y entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions for protection of the persons employed to do work relating to sewage operations is part of its oblig ation to do justice to the disadvantaged and poor sections of the society. We may add that the super ior courts will be failing in their constitutional duty if they decline to entertain petitions filed by genuine social groups, NGOs and social workers for e spousing the cause of those who are deprived of t he basic rights available to every human being, wha t to say of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It is the duty of the judicial constituent of the State like its political and executive c onstituents to protect the 23 rights of every citize n and every individual and ensure that everyone is able to live with dignity." 29. In the present case, the appellants urge this court to interfere with the impugned judgment on the ground that the writ peti tioners who approached the High Court /at whose behest the public interest proceedings were initiated , and the impugned directions issued, had personal motive. It was urged that the said writ petitioners were councillor s, and politically motivated. In the o pinion of this court, that fact is insufficient to allow the appeals. The c ause espoused by the said individuals was undoubtedly one of public interest, because it concerned housing for the ec onomically disadvantaged sections of society, in such great numb ers. The scheme was meant t o benefit thousands of persons, and over a thous and housing units were to be constructed and allotted to the beneficiaries. In view of the inquiries and the reports, conducted and prepared during the proceed ings, there could have been no manner of doubt th at the initiation of public interest proceedings , were justified, having regard to the co ntents of such reports. In the present case, even if the public interest litigants’ motives were ambiguous, or not imm ediately bona fide, th at could not have led to di smissal of the writ petit ion, before the High Co urt. The objection as to lack of standing of the public interest litigants, therefore, is without merit. 24 30. The record thus discloses that two PILs had been file d containing somew hat similar allegations, i. e. the failure and neglect on the part of the mu nicipal authorities of Naldurg in regard to completion of the scheme. The public interest litigants had alleged the utter mismanagement of IHSDP in terms of which as many as 1.05 la kh dwelling units were to b e constructed and handed over to the eligible in dividuals. As noted previously, the schem e contemplated a substantial funding by the central government and the rest of the funding to be borne by the allottees. A s against the ta rgeted 1206 housing units to be constructed, 737 beneficiaries belonged to th e reserved category and the rest to the g eneral category. The cost of construction was estimated to be ₹ 16,08,91,396/ - (Rupees Sixteen Crores Eight Lakhs Ninety O ne Thousand Three H undred N inety Six only). The total cost was ₹20,69,04,514/ - (Rupees Twenty Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs Four Thousand Fi ve Hundred Fourteen only). Eventually, the material in t he for m of inspection reports and affidavits of MHADA as well as t he Divisional Commissioner revealed that only 302 housing units were constructed in different localities in Naldurg , of which 202 could be used and 100 were in an unusable and dilapidated co nditio n. The proceedings before the High Court led to the inspectio n as well as the verification of accounts as a consequence of which the affidavits filed on behalf of the authorities 25 revealed that ex cess payments of ₹1,52,81,846/ - (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Six only) and ₹90,97,771/ - (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One only) were made. 31. The main arguments of the appell ants are that cri minal proceedings have been initiated against them even though they were not heard in the public interest proceedings , and that being adverse to them the judgment is vitiated on account of their non -participation. A grievance is also made out that of the d welling units constructed by the contractors, no deficiency was pointed out by the public agency, i.e. the municipality and that even civil action stood precluded because the contractual liability period had lapsed. 32. The impugned judgm ent disposed of b oth the PILs. Essentially, the first direction issued by the High Court, i.e. to the Divisional Commissioner to take steps referred to in affidavit in reply in general and para 8 in particular “to its logical end as expeditiously as possib le ” appears to be the rub in this case inasmuch as the appellants grouse is that it has led to l odging of an FIR. The affidavit recounted the objections of the IHSDP scheme and indicated the state of affairs with respect to the completed dwelling units, i. e. 302 houses. Th e affidavit cited the report dated 20.04.2019 and the steps recommended in the meeting of the 26 Committee on 22.04.2019. The Divisional Commissioner further stated as follows: “7. I say and submit that after the receipt of the report from th e technical commi ttee constituted by the deponent, the Collector Osmanabad has submitted her report dated 03/06/2019, wherein she stated that direction has been issued to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council Naldurg by her letter dated 03/06/2019. I) To recover the e xcess amount paid to the contractors from the concern contract ors and further directed to black list that contractors for Govt. work. II) Further directions has been issued to the Chief Officer Municipal Council Naldurg, to initiate actio n of criminal pro secution against the persons who have committed the irregulari ties. III). Further direction has been issued to the effect that the houses which are in repairable condition shall be allotted as per the procedure laid down under the PMAY and th e report of t he compliance shall be submitted. The copy of the report dated 03/06/2019 submitted by the Collector Osmanabad is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT “R -5”. 8. I say and submit that in the light of above facts and circumstances the depon en t vide its le tter dated 11/06/2019 directed the Collector Osmanabad to take steps for repairing the houses which are in repairable condition and same should be allotted to the eligible persons under PMAY scheme. That houses which are not in repairable co nd ition, by dem olishing the same new DPR plan should be prepared under th e PMAY scheme and the said houses should be allotted to the eligible person under the said scheme. Further directions has also been issued for lodging criminal prosecution against the persons respon sible for the irregularities in implementation of the sche me. The copy of the letter dated 11/06/2019 is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT “R -6". Hence this affidavit.” 27 33. It is quite evident that the High Court did not by itself direc t initiation of investigation nor did it direct registration of an FIR. Th e Divisional Commissioner had deposed those instructions had been given to take such steps. The High C ourt , therefore, ordered that those steps be taken to their logical end. 34. In the opinion of the court, whilst the reasoning for the impugned judgment was undoubtedly published after a long and unexplained delay, the effect of its operative directions were not to per se pr osecute . It merely required the Divisional Commi ssioner to take the neces sary steps , which were not limited to the launching of criminal prosecution but also taking steps towards reconstruction of the flats for the intended beneficiaries. It is further a matter of record that when the FIR was lodged i n December 2019, all the p resen t appellants – all of whom were not before the High Court - were named as accused. Another important fact which require s to be noticed is that several of these appella nts had approached this Court on the ground that their applications for antici patory bail had been rejected; they filed special leave petitions along with applications to file for special leave since they were not parties in the High Court. Those proceedings were entertained and this court had granted interim orders protecting them fr om coer ci ve action. 28 35. The material on record before the High Court in the form of inspection report dated 20.04.2019 and further materials including the Divisional Commissioner’s aff idavit , showed irregularities of a severe nature . The constructions, acc or ding to the reports, were sub -standard – in respect of 100 such houses, so severe that the units were unusable. The main objective of providing housing to 1206 eligible and deserving families remains unfulfilled despite expenditure of substantial amounts . In th e circumstances, the argument of the appellants that they ought t o have been heard even before action was initiated, does not commend to this Court; it is not sound. The five Judge Bench decision of this court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP 11 is cl ear in th at if there are allegations with respect to commission of cogn izable offences, brought to the notice of the police authorities, ordinarily an FIR has to be lodged. The Court held that: “119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registra tion or non -registration, what is necessary is only that the inf ormation given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immedia tely and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizab le offence, there is no other option but 11 (2014 ) 2 SCC 1 29 to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR .” 36. In the present case, there were materials suggesting serious irregularities. The government allowed t he Divisional Commissioner to affirm in the affidavit filed by him on 12.06.2019 that criminal proceedings would be initiated. In such circumstances, the o bservations of the High Court to take the matter to the logical end have to be, therefore, construed in that context. Whether the allegations are true or whether the submissions on behalf of the petitioners justified their conduct or omission is something upon which the High Court could not , and in the opinion of this court correctly, did not comment. As far as the FIR itself was concerned, the police had no choice given the imperative nature of the law declared in Lalita Kumari (supra) where a preliminary enquiry ordinarily is to be eschewed whenever cognizable offences are reported. 37. In light of t he a bove findings, this court is of the opinion that the appeals have to fail. However, it is made clear that the observations made 30 by the High Court or the obs ervations of this court, in the course of this judgment shall not be construed as precluding a ny arg ument or defences, the merits of any argument or defence that may be taken by the appellants in the course of the criminal proceedings. The appeals are acc ordingly dismissed but without any order on costs. ...................... ................... ...... ........J [L. NAGESWARA RAO ] ............... ........................................J [S. RAVINDRA BHAT ] New Delhi, October 5, 2021.