लवासा प्रकरणी उच्च न्यायालयाचा कळकळयुक्त त्रागा

@ल.त्र्यं. जोशी 9422865935

"With a deep sense of pain and remorse, we feel compelled to take judicial notice of the malaise of looting of India and its natural resources by its own people in the recent past. The roots of such malaise have, without doubt, set in deep. The country is faced with a situation where uprooting of this malaise seems to be difficult, if not impossible. For this to happen, first and foremost, the mindset of the people needs to change. The need of the hour is awakening of the collective consciousness of ‘we the people of India’. Greed, dishonesty, hatred, revenge, insensitivity, selfishness, jealousy and anger must give way to an unwavering faith in the Constitution, unadulterated love and affection, unlimited compassion, unflinching mutual trust, and unceasing sacrifice for the greater benefit of the nation. Above all, concern for the welfare of the people and zero tolerance for corruption must override all other considerations. If the greed and dishonesty for power and money continue unabated, the future does not augur too well for the country. We are conscious that it is a tall order to bring about an overhauling of the system to restore purity in governance of the people by the administration. Although by the mechanism of public interest litigation and through interventions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts there have been several instances of judicial invalidation of ultra vires acts, a ‘PIL’, it is well-known, is not a panacea for all ills. Despite judicial independence forming a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and despite power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution on the high courts being vast and pervasive, the high courts cannot act like the proverbial “bull in a china shop” in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The high courts have to regulate writ proceedings abreast of certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations that have evolved through pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Even when some defect is found in the decisionmaking process, the high courts have to exercise discretionary powers with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The larger public interest has to be borne in mind while deciding whether intervention is called for or not; and only when the court forms an opinion that overwhelming public interest requires interference should it interfere, is the law.'