Madhya Pradesh High Court
Daulat Singh Chouhan vs State Of Mp on 16 August, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 WP No.15932/2019
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
Case Number W.P.No. 15932/2019
Parties Name Daulat Singh Chouhan & Anr.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
Bench Division Bench:
Justice Sujoy Paul
Justice Anil Verma
Judgment delivered Justice Sujoy Paul
by
Whether approved for No
reporting
Name of counsel for Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the
parties petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned AAG for the
respondents/State.
Shri Anuj Bhargav, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Senior Counsel with
Shri Rishi Paliwal, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4.
Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel
with Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for
the respondent No.5.
Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel for the
proposed intervenor.
ORDER
(Passed on 16th August, 2021)
This petition was heard and reserved for orders on the question
of admission/maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation on
12/08/2021.
2) The Neemuch Town Improvement Trust floated scheme No.36-
A & B and reserved for construction of hospital. The Respondent No.4
submitted an application for lease of plot No.1049 for the purpose of
construction of hospital. In turn, by order dated 19/07/1993
respondent No.4 allotted said plot for construction of nursing home.
Respondent No.4 preferred several representations to the
Improvement Trust to relocate and shift the High Tension Line of
electricity over the said plot because of which construction of hospital
was not possible. After considerable long time on 16/09/2010, the
CMO, Neemuch informed respondent No.4 that High Tension Line
aforesaid has been relocated. By Resolution dated 07/04/2011
(Annexure P/4), the respondent No.3 cancelled the lease given in
favour of Respondent No.4 due to alleged violation of terms and
conditions of lease. The respondent No.4 assailed it before respondent
No.2 under the provisions of MP Municipalities Act, 1961. By order
dated 04/10/2018 (Annexure P/10), the Respondent No.2 set aside the
Resolution dated 07/04/2011. This order dated 04/10/2018 (Annexure
P/10) is called in question by the petitioners in this PIL.
3) The objection of the respondents is that this Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) is filed by two persons, one claims herself to be a
social worker, whereas the other person (petitioner No.1) claims
himself to be an advocate/social worker. By placing reliance on
various judgments of Supreme Court and this Court, it is a common
ground taken by Shri Sunil Jain and Shri Amit Agrawal, learned
Senior Counsel and Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Additional
Advocate General that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this
petition. At the behest of the petitioners, this PIL cannot be
entertained.
4) Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for petitioners submits that
both the petitioners are social workers and relevant averments of the
petition shows that they can very well file and maintain this PIL.
5) Shri Sunil Jain and Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior Counsels
during the course of hearing placed reliance on following judgments:-
"State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal -
(2010) 3 SCC 402, Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of
W.B. - (2004) 3 SCC 349, Surendra Pratap Singh vs.
State of M.P. - 2018 SCC Online MP 1341, Vinoy
Kumar vs. State of U.P. - (2001) 4 SCC 734,
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of
Maharashtra - (2013) 4 SCC 465, State of U.P. vs.
Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh - (1989) 2 SCC
505, State of Haryana vs. Ram Kishan - (1988) 3 SCC
416 and Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy - 2005 (6) SCC
321".
6) The parties were heard on the question of maintainability for
sufficient length.
7) The relevant paragraphs of PIL which contains description of
petitioners read as under:-
^^1- ;g fd] izkFkhZx.k uhep ftys ds LFkk;h ,oa lkekftd
dk;ZdrkZ gksdj le;≤ ij lkekftd fgr esa yEcs le;
ls dk;Z dj jgs gSaA izkFkhZ dz-2 o"kZ 2011 esa uxj ikfydk
ifj"kn uhep esa ik"kZn ,oa lHkkifr in /kkj.k dj pqdh gSS rFkk
uxj ikfydk ifj"kn uhep ,oa e/; izns'k 'kklu dks vkfFkZd
gkfu ls cpkus gsrq fujarj iz;kljr jgrh gSA
2- ;g fd] izkFkhZx.k ;g ;kfpdk tufgr esa lafo/kku ds
vuqPNsn 226 ds vUrxZr izLrqr dj jgs gSaA bl ;kfpdk esa
izfrizkFkhZ dz-2 }kjk Lo;a ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs gksdj izfrizkFkhZ
dz- 4 o 5 dks ykHkkafor fd;s tkus gsrq fookfnr vkns'k fnukad
04-10-2018 ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftlls izfrizkFkhZ dz-3 o
e/;izns'k 'kklu dks Hkkjh uqdlku gksuk fuf'pr gSA
3- ;g fd] izkFkhZx.k ;g ;kfpdk fdlh ds }kjk mRizsfjr
djus ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr u dj viuh&viuh Loizsj.kk ls
izLrqr dj jgs gSaA bl ;kfpdk dk lEiw.kZ O;; ftlesa
vkus&tkus dk [kpZ vkSj vf/koDrk Qhl Hkh 'kkfey gSa Lo;a gh
O;; dj jgs gSaA^^
8) The judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents deal with the locus of the petitioners, who can file PILs.
The Supreme Court expressed its concern on the tendency of filing
writ petitions in the name of PIL by busy bodies or by persons to gain
popularity etc. After considering various judgments of Supreme Court,
Hemant Gupta, C.J. (As His Lordship then was) speaking for Division
Bench of this Court in (2019) 1 MPLJ 75 (Surendra Pratap Singh
vs. State of MP) opined as under:-
"8. Except the averment in the petition that the
petitioners are social workers, there is no assertion of
their activity undertaken by them in the villages in
question. Simple self-serving statement that the
petitioners are social workers is not sufficient to invoke
the public interest writ jurisdiction of this Court unless
the petitioners are able to produce on record to the
satisfaction of the Court such social work in last couple
of years is in the area in respect of which the public
interest writ petition is involved. A practice in the cases
before this Court is to make a statement that the
petitioners are social workers and they are spending the
money including the lawyer's fee from their own pocket.
That by itself does not satisfy the test of a locus standi to
file public interest litigation. The public interest writ
jurisdiction was intended to vindicate public interest
where fundamental and other rights of the people who
were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically
disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal
redress were required to be espoused."
9) If the description of the petitioners mentioned in the petition
and para reproduced herein-above are carefully seen, it will be clear
like cloudless sky that the description so given by the petitioners is not
sufficient to maintain this PIL. The petitioners have merely described
themselves to be social workers without mentioning about their nature
of social work/activity. No description and proof of such activity is
filed along with the PIL. Thus, in the light of judgment of Surendra
Pratap Singh (supra), we find substance in the objection of the
respondents. Thus, this PIL at the behest of petitioners cannot be
entertained.
10) This WP (PIL) is dismissed as not maintainable at the behest of
present petition.
(Sujoy Paul) (Anil Verma)
Judge Judge
soumya
Digitally signed
by SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Date: 2021.08.16
16:22:58 +05'30'
