Durg (C.G.) v. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18784-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 47 of 2025 Prabuddha Nagarik Manch A Society Registered Under The Societies Act, 1973, Having Its Registered Office At-R-38, Housing Board Colony, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.26 11:12:12 +0530 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Of Land Records, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Block-2, 1st Floor, Indrawati Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002 3 - The Collector, Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - The Commissioner, Durg Division, Commissioner Office, Durg Division, Udyog Bhawan, Malviya Nagar Chowk, Durg Chhattisgarh 491001 5 - Durg Jila Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rajnandgaon (Registration No. 1379) Housing Board, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
“143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.” 11. The Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under: “12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters—government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine 9 queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or ofÏcious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue mufÏng their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder was challenged. The Court held that the scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must 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. The 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. 13. In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine 10 petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the petitioner has alternative efÏcacious remedy for redressal of his grievance as raised in this petition before the appropriate forum, and as such, the instant PIL is, accordingly, dismissed. The security amount deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet
Arguments
: Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.04.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “ (a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the respondent authorities to cancel the lease granted to the respondent housing society as the same being arbitrary and against public interest; or (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the Respondent State to act in accordance with applicable statutory provisions and to initiate legal & criminal action(s) against the respondent housing society to recover the applicable dues, premiums over the illegally occupied land beyond the 04.74 acres of leased limits and take possession of the said land and direct the Inquiry Committee instituted by the Collector, Durg vide order dated 25/10/2024 to file its report within stipulated time. (c) Pass such further orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.” 2. Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner- Prabuddha Nagarik 3 Manch is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1973 vide registration certificate issued dated 08/07/2004 with its registered ofÏce located at R-38, Housing Board Colony, Bhilai, Distt- Durg (C.G.). It was established to promote education to the downtrodden, to work for the education towards environment conservation, promoting sports, motivating the youth to work for social and national cause, to promote the abolition of social wrongs like dowry, intoxication, to help victims of natural calamities, environment protection, and to promote the center and state initiated programs and to help implement them and to increase the growth the revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents authorities are not taking any concrete action against the Durg Jila Greh Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rajnandgaon (Housing cooperative society) who has sold an area of around approx. 9 acres of prime government land, adjacent to the land allotted to the said Housing Society by the then State authorities which the said society had no legal right to sell and was in contravention of the land allotment given to the said society. The State authorities are shying away and not making any attempts to recover the loss of revenue to the State exchequer and also have not taken any action against the said Society for violating the lease condition wherein in place of residential houses supposed to be made in an area of 3000 sq. feet, few of the influential people have now made houses to the extent of 7600 to 9000 sq. feet and the said society has not paid requisite premium, interest and Bhubhatak tax and when the entire incident 4 was brought to the knowledge of the then Collector, Durg then in panic and hurry, an amount of Rs. 33 lakhs was paid in challan by the said Society and an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was made thereby praying for the renewal of the lease and the premium was collected on the originally allotted land of 04.74 acres and the illegally grabbed area of 9 acres, no dues was demanded. Upon the said fact, the lease was renewed upon recommendation and Mr. Vimlesh Jain had then preferred a complaint before the Collector, Durg and upon no action on the said complaint, another complaint was preferred before the Commissioner, who then constituted a 4 member team and directed them to submit a report within a period of 15 days and the said inquiry constituted by the Commissioner found the allegation of the grabbing of government land by the said society as true where it was categorically stated in the said report that the said Society has made colony on the total area of 581200 sq. feet which is in surplus of 352946 sq. feet to the originally allotted land of 206474 sq. feet and the said Society in its letter dated 19/04/2023 addressed to the Collector, Durg has accepted that the lease condition mandated land allotment of only 300 sq. feet per person but they have allotted lands for a size of 4800 sq. feet and even more and still the lease was renewed by the State authorities. Mr. Vimlesh Jain then preferred a complaint to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, the Prime Minister's OfÏce registered the complaint under PMOPG/D/2024/0180583 and in pursuance of the same, the Collector, Durg then initiated an inquiry into the same vide order No. 9192/Nazul/2024 dated 25/10/2024 by 5 constituting a 5 member team and the Collector, Durg directed the said committee to furnish the report within 7 days. Even after a lapse of 5 months since the said order dated 25/10/2024 was passed, the said Committee has not yet submitted their inquiry report and is being lingered on. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the corruption often leads to the misallocation of public resources, which can violate the fundamental rights of citizens, such as the right to equality (article 14) and the right to life and personal liberty (article21) under the Indian Constitution. In the instant case, the loss of revenue to the State exchequer is also due to the negligence of the public authorities who are entrusted with the duty to expose illegal activities and expose corruption. Corruption undermines public trust in institutions and governance and affects the delivery of public services, such as healthcare, education and infrastructure and can be challenged through PIL in the interest of the public. In the instant case, the petitioner is not directly affected by the issue but is bringing forward the issue of public importance as the loss of revenue to the state impacts the entire public as it reduces the funds available for development welfare schemes, and public services. This makes it a matter of public interest, which is the primary criterion of filing a PIL. The public interest litigation has been used to challenge the government's failure to recover taxes from large corporations and in the instant case the said society has clearly obstructed the revenue owed to the State but has also acted in complete defiance of the rule of law by blatantly capturing a huge 6 portion of land which is explicit and proven by the inquiry report conducted by the Commissioner, Durg Division. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would object the locus standi of the petitioner and submits that if the petitioner has any grievance with respect to unauthorised sale of lands by the respondent No. 5 Society, it may take recourse to appropriate forum by filing complaint before the competent authority or may file a criminal complaint before the jurisdictional criminal Court. Therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. The petitioner itself has made complaints before the various authorities which are pending and the petitioner may pursue its complaints pending. 7. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide 7 credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. 8. The petitioner has not disclosed his credentials in detail except to state that he has been authorised by the Society vide letter dated 27.02.2025, which is established to promote education to the downtrodden, environment conservation, motivating the youth for social and national cause. Though it has been pleaded that there is no personal gain or motive other than the public interest in filing the present petition, the locus of the petitioner-Society has also not been explained or disclosed. Instead, an application being IA No. 1/2025, seeking leave for waiver of locus standi, has been filed. 9. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Gurmet Singh Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2021 (5) ADJ 409, noticing the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation. 10. The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Supreme Court Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the three stages of a PIL which has been discussed above. The Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh Chaufal 8 (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under: