APHC010532662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 189 of 2025 [3483] Kalluru Venkata Manoj Reddy ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of AP and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. C. Nageswara Rao, Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Uday Kumar Vampugadavala Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. V. Venugopal Rao, Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr. N.V.S. Prasada Varma CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 15th October 2025 P C: The present petition has been filed purportedly in public interest challenging the notification, dated 14.08.2025, issued by Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati. The said notification has been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates “professing Hindu religion” for various categories of posts such as Professors, Assistant professors and Associate Professors in Broad and Super Specialties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notification is illegal and violates the basic structure of secularism enshrined 2 HCJ & RC, J W.P.(PIL) No:189 of 2025 under the Constitution and violates Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, prays for quashing the said impugned notification. 2. The present writ petition was filed on 06.10.2025. It can also be seen from the record that while the notification impugned in the present petition was issued on 14.08.2025, the last date for submission of application forms from eligible candidates was fixed as 08.09.2025. Despite the fact that the applications are invited by virtue of the impugned notification as early as in the month of August, 2025 and the last date for receipt of applications is since over and the applications are being processed further, there is no candidate, who felt aggrieved of the notification impugned, as against the petitioner in the present PIL, who claims to be a businessman and is admittedly a resident of not the State of Andhra Pradesh but the State of Telangana, who has preferred the present writ petition to challenge the notification impugned on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 3. The concept of public interest litigation evolved diluting the principle of aggrieved person and the rule of locus standi with the view to give voice to the voiceless, the downtrodden and the marginalized. This concept evolved inasmuch as it was realized that large sections of the society were denied justice on account of either ignorance or poverty. In Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India1, the Apex Court held: 1 (1981) 1 SCC 568 3 HCJ & RC, J W.P.(PIL) No:189 of 2025 “43. Public interest litigation is part of the process of participate justice and „standing‟ in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps.” 4. While the entire concept of public interest litigation, which is not in the nature of adversarial litigation, is to fulfill the constitutional obligation of the judiciary towards the poor and the marginalized sections of the society, yet the Apex Court has repeatedly reiterated by cautioning the Constitutional Courts to be careful while entertaining public interest litigations, which have the tendency to enable the said platform to be used for purposes of exploitation, extraneous considerations or for the benefit of certain individuals. In Jaipur Shahir Hindu Vikas Samithi v. State of Rajasthan2, the Apex Court held: “49. The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. ..” 5. A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Thakur, J) was a member in W.P.(PIL) No.190 of 2023, held: “6.1. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary3, the Apex Court had emphasized that it was only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL alone would have a locus standi and could approach the Court to wipe out 2 (2014) 5 SCC 530 3 (1992) 4 SCC 305 4 HCJ & RC, J W.P.(PIL) No:189 of 2025 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 who could maintain such a petition. It was further held that a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 6.2. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra4 , it is held as under: "12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. 14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as publicspirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. 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." 6. In the light of the aforementioned settled principles of law, it can be seen that the present petition has certainly not been filed to espouse the cause of either the marginalized or the downtrodden. The impugned 4 2005 (1) SCC 590 5 HCJ & RC, J W.P.(PIL) No:189 of 2025 notification in fact invites applications for appointment to the posts of Professors, Assistant professors, Associate Professors, which are to be filled up from one of the most literate class of the citizenry, who cannot be presumed to be, in any manner, handicapped either on account of poverty or ignorance from accessing justice from this Court. The petitioner, on the other hand, is a businessman, who may have an arguable point but then equally settled is the principle that the Constitutional Courts may not always exercise their writ jurisdiction only because it is lawful to do so. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes5 wherein it was held: “7. …The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary : it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. …” 7. Keeping in view the aforementioned principles of law and the fact that none of the candidates, who otherwise would claim themselves to be eligible for appointment but for that part of the notification, which requires a person to be eligible only if he was professing Hindu religion, have come forward and feels aggrieved of the said notification, we do not feel inclined to undertake the exercise of going into the validity or otherwise of the impugned notification in the instant petition. 5 AIR 1964 SC 1419 6 HCJ & RC, J W.P.(PIL) No:189 of 2025 We therefore leave the issue open to be decided in an appropriate case by a person, who otherwise establishes his locus and claims to be a person aggrieved. We accordingly dismiss the present petition. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J akn 7 HCJ & RC, J W.P.(PIL) No:189 of 2025 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition (PIL) No:189 of 2025 DATE : 15.10.2025 AKN 318