The High Court, after hearing a PIL, had quashed a public auction of the land by the IDA, the highest bid for which was offered by Malik Brothers. Imposing a cost of Rs 20,000 on the person who filed the PIL, a division bench of the apex court comprising Justice S Saghir Ahmad and Justice G B Pattanaik said no substantive material was produced before the High Court to indicate that the price of the land would be much higher than the auction price got by the IDA.

``The High Court of Madhya Pradesh committed a serious error of law by invoking its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution at the behest of a person who has no interest in the litigation in question and in quashing the decision of the IDA referring the dispute to anarbitrator as well as his award,'' the bench said.

The High Court had also erred by entering into an arena of conjecture and by assuming that the price of the land must have gone up without having any material in this respect.

The apex court said, ``It is necessary to bear in mind that a PIL is usually entertained by a court for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social rights and vindicating public interest.''

The court said the real purpose of entertaining a PIL was vindication of the rule of law, effective access to justice to the economically weaker class and meaningful realisation of the fundamental rights.

The bench quoting an earlier judgement said if frivolous PILS were entertained, traditional litigants would suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, would have to take upon themselves administrative and executive function.

Referring to the Indore case, the apex court said, ``How a person in the name of being a tax payer of themunicipality has protracted a public interest litigation which has resulted in gross injustice to the IDA and also the highest bidder.

``In fact, interest of public is not at all involved and it is further to be noticed that the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been swayed away to entertain a petition, quashing a public auction and the award of the arbitrator, thereby frustrating the provisions of the arbitration act fully,'' the bench added.