Jharkhand High Court
Nand Kishore vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 January, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 6026 of 2023
.........
Nand Kishore, Aged about 48 years, Son of Sri Ram
Pravesh Sharma, Resident of Durga Mandir, Babudih, B-
Polytechnic, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagganathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.
Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad, Municipal
Corporation, P.O.& P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad
5. Public Information Officer, Dhanbad Collectorate,
P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Ranchi.
6. Public Information Officer Dhanbad Municipal
Corporation, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
.....Respondent
.........
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
.........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Res.-State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to AG
For the DMC : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
C.A.V. ON 15/01/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 30 /01/2025
Per Deepak Roshan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application (PIL) has been preferred
by the petitioner praying for a direction for an enquiry and
investigation into the alleged illegal construction of shops,
installation of a garbage compactor machine, and allotment
of land for parking vehicles by inviting tender over a piece
of land by the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, which was
leased to be used as a park. Further direction has also been
sought to demolish the illegally constructed shops, garbage
compactor machine, and for removal of all sorts of nuisance
in and around the public utility land (ladies and children
Park).
The petitioner has also prayed that a direction be
given for initiating action against the erring officials who
are responsible for the change of utility over the land and
further prayer has been made to direct the respondent to
operationalize, restore the beauty and greenery of the park
in its original position.
3. The land forming the subject matter of the present
petition is situated at Municipal survey plot no. 1117 in
Mauza Hirapur, Thana No. 07 in the district of Dhanbad
measuring 4.82 acres.
4. The petitioner claims to be a citizen of India and a
public-spirited person, activist under the Right to
Information Act and claims to be diligently involved in
espousing the cause of common people and has no interest
in the subject matter of the instant petition. The petitioner
has stated that he had earlier filed a PIL seeking an
investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation in
relation to award of tenders by the Coal Mines Provident
Fund Organisation in the year 2011, 2012 to 2016. The
petitioner has also stated that he filed an application for
intervention in a PIL being W.P. (PIL). No. 497 of 2023 to
draw attention of this Court towards the safety measures in
the apartments, particularly in the district of Dhanbad.
Both the above petition/application have been disposed of
and the orders evidencing such disposal have been placed
as Annexure-1 and Annexure-1/1.
5. According to the petitioner, the land in question was
conveyed by way of a registered lease in favour of the
Dhanbad Municipality being Deed No. 3252/3253 dated
23.02.1946 executed by and between the Governor of the
erstwhile State of Bihar and the Dhanbad Municipality.
According to the petitioner, the land leased to the Dhanbad
Municipality was on a condition that the same will be used
for construction of a park and the nature of the user of
land would not be changed without the prior permission of
the Deputy Commissioner.
Though the park was constructed, and the people of
the locality were using the same, the petitioner came to
learn that Dhanbad Municipal Corporation has instead of
using the land in question as a "Ladies and Children Park"
has constructed certain shops, installed a garbage
compactor and are also using the land as a parking space.
The petitioner has further complained of non-
compliance of the order passed by a Division Bench of this
Court in a Public Interest Litigation, which was numbered
as W.P.(PIL) No. 4541 of 2004 and by an order dated
18.03.2005 it was directed that the bathrooms installed in
the park must be constructed in such a manner that it
must be utilised in a way that it should not cause any
inconvenience or interference with the proper use of the
park by those for whom it was meant to be established. The
municipality was also directed to take proper steps to keep
the toilet clean and flush and to see that no foul smell is
emitted from the toilet beyond the permissible limit.
6. Having gone through the entire petition, it transpires
that the same lacks in material particulars. The petition
does not indicate the number of shops that have been
constructed and rented out by the Dhanbad Municipal
Corporation, and since when such arrangement has been
entered into by Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. Likewise,
no details of the installation of the garbage compactor or
the land being used as a parking space has been set out in
the petition such as since when the land has been put to
such use. In other words, the period since when the user of
the land has changed and to what extent has not been set
out in the petition. The Supreme Court of India in the case
of State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal
& Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 at paragraph 181
held as follows:
"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have
also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number
of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has
become imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively
discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing
with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court
to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging
the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High
Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within
three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure
that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary
General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner
before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of
the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is
involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public
interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) 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.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for
extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary
costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations."
7. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Gurpal Singh
versus State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2005) 5 SCC
136 at paragraph 5, while dealing with a Public Interest
Litigation, held that the Court while entertaining a petition
styled as a public litigation has to be satisfied about the
correctness or nature of information given by the petitioner
and also that the information is not vague and indefinite
because the court has to strike a balance between two
conflicting interest that is (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. The Supreme
Court categorically held that in such cases that the Court
cannot afford to be liberal. It was further held that the
court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with impostors
and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating
as public-spirited Holy Men.
8. Coming back to the facts of the present case it
transpires; the petitioner has miserably failed to point out
as to how the public interest is involved in this petition
because the causes for which Dhanbad Municipal
Corporation is using the land are also in public interest. It
cannot be said that using an area for constructing shops
and letting them out where the public can buy their day-to-
day goods or installation of garbage compactor or assigning
an area for parking of vehicles by the public at large are not
in public interest.
9. Though no affidavit has been filed by the Dhanbad
Municipal Corporation, but in course of argument, it was
submitted that a stadium was constructed in the vicinity
namely, Randhir Verma Stadium was being used by the
people of the locality for their walks and other activities,
and therefore the use of the present land as a park had
diminished.
10. Having regard to the requirement of the public, the
decision to use the land for the purpose of construction of
shops to be used by the common public to purchase the
day-to-day goods, installation of a garbage, compactor and
ear marking an area for parking of vehicles by the public at
large cannot be said to be against the interest of the public
and therefore any interference by this court in the
jurisdiction meant to be a weapon in the armory of law for
delivering social justice to the citizens and aimed to address
the genuine public or public injury is not at all warranted.
11. Alleged breach of a condition regarding unauthorised
change of user of land conveyed under a registered lease
deed, even where both the contracting parties are "State",
by itself cannot be a ground to invoke the public interest
litigation jurisdiction of this court.
12. Viewed thus, the petition is dismissed with costs
assessed at Rs. 2500/- to be deposited with the Dhanbad
District Legal Services Authority within 3 weeks from today;
failing which the same shall be recovered in accordance
with law.
13. Accordingly, the instant PIL stands dismissed.
Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
N.A.F.R
