Raj Kumar v. Union of India

2007 and has also challenged the ‘In-Principle Approval’ 5 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025 granted vide order dated 22.06.2024 issued by the Regional Officer Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in favour of the respondent No. 13 in violation of the principles of Forest Conservation Rules 2022.

05. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent No. 13 has filed the objections, stating therein that ‘In Principal approval’ has been validly granted by the Central Government by exercising its powers under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; that any person aggrieved by an order of decision made by any authority under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 may prefer an appeal to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) within thirty days from such order or decision; that the petitioner instead of availing alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal to the NGT, has straightway come to this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because of the remedy available with him, inasmuch as, several High Courts across the country have passed orders refusing to exercise their extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the alternate efficacious remedy available before the National Green Tribunal; that the petitioner has not come to this High Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts in the present PIL, which have 6 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025 been brought forth by the answering respondent No. 13 hereinabove and besides, there is already multiplicity of litigation before the revenue and civil courts in respect of the lis forming the subject-matter of the present PIL petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is needless to emphasize that the requirement of locus standi of a party to litigation is mandatory because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation, whether in private or public action, in relation to any specific remedy sought for, has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.

08. The Apex Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported as 1981 Supp. SCC 87 laying a note of caution held that we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. The Apex Court again in a case of State of H.P Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla & Ors reported as 1985(3) SCC 169 has 7 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025 held that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with great care and circumspection.

09. It is an admitted fact that the land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas, which is subject matter of this petition, has been mutated by the jurisdictional Tehsildar and Revision titled “Raj Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Kathua & Ors” against that mutation has been pending with the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu wherein the private respondent No. 13, namely, Chetan Mahajan @ Chetan Gupta has also been arrayed as party. It is a matter to be decided by the revenue authorities regarding as to under what circumstances the land in question, which the petitioner claims to be ‘gair mumkin Jhad’, has been mutated in the name of a private person based on some sale deed.

10. Besides, the matter regarding the subject matter of this writ petition being an issue before the revenue authorities, admittedly, regarding the same property, a civil suit for declaration has also been filed by Mayank Mahajan and Vikram Sharma against Dushyant Kumar Ubbot, respondent No. 12 herein and Chetan Mahajan @ Chetan Gupta, respondent No. 13 herein, which is subjudice before the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (CJM), Kathua. The subject matter of this petition being the subject matter of the Revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and the pendency of a civil suit 8 WP(C) PIL No. 2/2025 regarding the same subject matter before the civil court, in our considered opinion, can be an impediment in filing this Public Interest Litigation as the parties before the revenue forum and the civil court shall have the opportunity of determination of the rights with regard to the subject matter of this petition.

11. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that no further proceedings are required to be taken in this petition, which has been styled as Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner, in view of the available remedies before the fora stated hereinabove, as already availed.

12. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with connected application(s), if any. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. JAMMU 10.03.2025 NARESH/SECY (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE (TASHI RABSTAN) CHIEF JUSTICE Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: Yes Naresh Kumar 2025.03.12 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document