For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Add. A.G. and Mr. Dhiraj
Kumar Wankhede with Ms. Samyak Singhai,
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
16.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel for petitioner as well
as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the State/respondent as well as Mr. Dhiraj Kumar
Wankhede with Ms. Samyak Singhai, learned counsel for
respondent No. 6/NHAI.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner styled as
(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper
in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner, a social worker and permanent resident as
stated in the cause title, seeking a direction to the respondent
authorities to consider and decide his pending complaints/
representations and to recover the loss caused to the State to the
extent of 1,45,000 cubic-meter of soil gravel from the private
respondent No. 5. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the
fact that respondent No. 5 was granted permission upon payment
of royalty amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- for excavation of only 5,000
cubic-meter of soil/gravel (मिट्टी/गिट्टी) from land bearing Khasra No.
495 admeasuring 3.140 hectares situated at Village Mendraka,
P.S.- Kurud, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) for the purpose of
construction of Bharatmala Road. However, in gross violation of
the said permission, the respondent No. 5 illegally excavated
approximately 1,50,000 cubic-meter of soil gravel at multiple
locations including Khasra Nos. 730, 646, 305 and 717, allegedly
in connivance with respondent No. 4 (Sarpanch), without any
Gram Sabha approval or due process of law, thereby causing
substantial financial loss to the Government as well as serious
environmental and agricultural harm to the villagers due to
depletion of water levels. It is further submitted that despite
repeated complaints and representations, supported by RTI
information and proceedings before the learned Tahsildar
indicating such illegal excavation and loss, the respondent
authorities have failed to take any action for recovery or penal
consequences. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court
by filing WPC No. 3578/2025, which was withdrawn with liberty to
file a better constituted petition, and hence, the present petition
has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,
being a public-spirited person and social worker, has approached
this Court seeking appropriate directions against the inaction of
the respondent authorities in a matter involving grave illegality and
loss to the public exchequer, inasmuch as respondent No. 5,
despite being granted permission upon payment of royalty of
Rs.2,50,000/- for excavation of only 5,000 cubic-meter of soil
gravel from Khasra No. 495 admeasuring 3.140 hectares for the
Bharatmala road project, has in blatant violation of the terms of
permission and statutory provisions, illegally excavated
approximately 1,50,000 cubic-meter of soil gravel from multiple
Khasra numbers and locations, allegedly in connivance with
respondent No. 4 and without any sanction of the Gram Sabha or
competent authority, thereby causing substantial financial loss to
the State to the extent of 1,45,000 cubic-meter as revealed
through RTI information and revenue proceedings, and also
adversely affecting the agricultural activities and groundwater
level of the villagers. It is further submitted that despite repeated
complaints and representations made by the petitioner and
villagers, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities
till date, which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of their statutory
duties, compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court, especially in light of the earlier writ
petition being withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, and thus,
appropriate directions for consideration of representation and
recovery of the loss are liable to be issued.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the present
petition, though styled as a Public Interest Litigation, is not
maintainable as the petitioner lacks bona fide locus standi and the
issue involved does not disclose any real element of public
interest. It is contended that the allegations pertain to excavation
of soil and alleged excess mining activity, which fall squarely
within the domain of the competent revenue and mining
authorities, and appropriate statutory mechanisms are already in
place to deal with such grievances. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is attempting to give a colour of public interest to what is
essentially an administrative dispute, and the same cannot be
agitated in the guise of a PIL. The petitioner has not demonstrated
any direct legal injury nor any exceptional circumstance
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
7. From perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that
the grievance of the petitioner relates to alleged excess
excavation of soil and gravel by respondent No. 5 beyond the
permitted quantity and consequential loss to the State exchequer.
The record further reflects that such matters are subject to
regulation and supervision by the competent authorities under the
relevant mining and revenue laws. It also appears that the
petitioner has already submitted complaints/representations
before the authorities concerned and has relied upon RTI
information and proceedings before the Tahsildar. However, the
core issue pertains to factual determination of quantity excavated,
assessment of loss and initiation of recovery proceedings, which
are matters falling within the statutory jurisdiction of the competent
authorities. The petitioner has not established any exceptional
circumstance demonstrating failure of statutory remedies so as to
invoke writ jurisdiction in the nature of a PIL.
8. 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 (supra) states as to how this important
jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observing
as under:
"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."
9. 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 queue for years with the fond hope of
getting into the courts and having their grievances
redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome
interlopers, wayfarers or officious 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
muffing 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."
10. 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.
11. In the present case, this Court is not satisfied that the petition
discloses a genuine case of public interest warranting interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grievance raised
by the petitioner pertains to enforcement and compliance of
statutory provisions by the authorities concerned, for which
appropriate remedies are available under law before the
competent forum. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid
of merit and not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation, is
liable to be and hereby dismissed. The security amount
deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
