The petitioner filed a PIL alleging that a respondent copied a dissertation and never attended classes. The court dismissed the petition as not being a public interest litigation, holding that the aggrieved party must file a personal challenge rather than using a PIL.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.333 OF 2012
DATED:1.10.2012
Between: Dr. Irfan Shaik And The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Department, Hyderabad and others.
… Petitioner
…. Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.333 of 2012
Order: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
In this public interest litigation, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct a full-fledged enquiry with regard to prosecution of Post Graduate course, i.e., M.D. Unani by the 6th respondent and more particularly with regard to the dissertation submitted by the 6th respondent before issuing him the Pass Certificate or Provisional Certificate in respect of the said course.
According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent, who is senior to the petitioner has completed his P.G. Course in Mahir-e-Tib, i.e., M.D. Unani in Tahaffuzi Wa Samaji Tib (Preventive and Community Medicine). Petitioner further stated that the 6th respondent never attended the college and there were number of complaints against him. Despite this, the 6th respondent managed to write the examination and also submitted his dissertation. Petitioner states that the dissertation submitted by the 6th respondent is similar to the one submitted by one Dr. Mohd. Farooque of National Institute of Unani Medicine, Bangalore. Petitioner, therefore, alleged that some copy right infringement has been done by the said 6th respondent and prays that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to take action against the 6th respondent.
In our opinion, this petition cannot be treated as a public interest
litigation and further more, if any right of a person has been infringed by the 6th respondent, the aggrieved person has a right to come before the Court challenging the said action and the petitioner cannot file this petition in public interest and ask for an order from this Court.
The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly dismissed.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 1.10.2012 pnb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to approach the Court as a public interest litigant regarding alleged plagiarism in a medical dissertation.
Whether the petitioner can seek direction for an enquiry into the qualifications of a senior colleague through a PIL.
Dr. Irfan Shaik
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
