Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheetal Bhimani vs Shriman Jiladhish Mahoday on 23 February, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 3497 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHEETAL BHIMANI S/O SHRI THAKURDAS BHIMANI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS A 25
SHIV VILAS PALACE, RAJBADA, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI HARSHIT SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. SHRIMAN JILADHISH MAHODAY COLLECTOR
KARYALAY, DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHRIMAN NIGAM AAYUKT MAHODAY NAGAR
PALIKA NIGAM, INDORE INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHRIMAN POLICE AYUKT MAHODAY POLICE
AYUKT KARYALAYA INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SHRIMAN JILA PANJIYAK MAHODAY PANJIYAN
KARYALAYA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHRIMAN POLICE UPAYUKT MAHODAY ZONE NO.
02, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHRIMAN SAHAYAK AYUKT MAHODAY SAHAYAK
POLICE AYUKT KARYALAYA KHAJRANA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. ANIL GAAVDE S/O SHRI SANTOSH GAAVDE
PREETI NAGAR, BENGALI SQUARE (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
PRADESH)
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 2/24/2023
4:06:32 PM
2
8. SARSWATI GAAVADE W/O LATE SHRI SANTOSH
GAAVDE BUNGLOW NO. 01, MANAVTA NAGAR,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. RAMESHCHANDRA JAT S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA
JAT 196, MAANAVTA NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. SURESH DUDHALE, 240 A MAANAVTA NAGAR,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI ANAND SONI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS)
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. By way of this Public Interest Litigation(PIL), the petitioner is seeking
the following reliefs :-
12-1- ;g fd] mijksD r izR ;kFkhZx .k dze kad 7 yxk;r~ 11 ds fo:) lq{ erk ls
tkWap djokbZ tk;s o foxr~ ,d o"kZ esa ekuork uxj esa tks QthZ nLRkkost ksa ds
vk/kkj ij jftLVz; kW gqb Z gSa mudh tkWap dh tk;sA
12-2- ;g fd] mijksDr izR;kFkhZx.k dzekad 07 yxk;r~ 11 ds }kjk
ekuork uxj esa tks voS/k edku fcuk vuqefr ds fcuk uD'kk ikl djok;s
cukdj fodz; fd;s gSa] mldh lw{erk ls tkWap dh tkdj nksf"k;ksa ds fo:)
/kks[kk/kMh o tkylkth dh /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr~ eqdnek dk;e fd;k
tk;sA
12-3- ;g fd] ekuork uxj esa fd;s tk jgs voS/k fuekZ.k dks rRdky jksdk
tk;s o ekuork uxj fLFkr iSfd IykVksa dh jftLVzh;ksa ij rRdky jksd
yxkbZ tk;s o 'kklu ds le{k lHkh iSfd IykVksa dh jfTkLVzh;ksa dks
ljsaMj djok;k tk;sA
12-4- ;g fd] mijksDr izR;kFkhZx.k dzekad 07 yxk;r~ 11 ds }kjk 'kklu
dks Hkh fcuk uD'ks dh Qhl vnk fd;s voS/k fuekZ.k fd;s x;s gS ftl
dkj.k uxj fuxe bankSj dks Hkh yk[kksa :i;s ds jktLo dh gkfu gqbZ gS]
;g Hkh mijksDr izR;kFkhZx.kksa ls olwy dh tk;sA
12-5- ;g fd] mijksDr izR;kFkhZx.k dzekad 07 yxk;r~ 11 ds }kjk fd;s
x;s voS/k fuekZ.kksa dks /OkLr dj buds fo:) vkijkf/kd izdj.k ntZ djus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 2/24/2023
4:06:32 PM
ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tk;s o voS/k fuekZ.kksa ls tqMh lHkh jftLVzh;ksa
ij jksd yxkbZ tk;s o 'kklu ds le{k lHkh voS/k fuekZ.kksa dh
jftLVzh;ksa dks ljsaM-j djok;k tk;sA
12-6- ;g fd] mijksDr izR;kFkhZx.k dzekad 01 yxk;r~ 06 dks ;g vkns'k
ikfjr fd;s tk;s fd og izR;kFkhZx.k dzekad 07 yxk;r~ 11 ds }kjk ekuork
uxj esa tks voS/k edku fcuk vuqefr ds fcuk uD'kk ikl djok;s cukdj
fodz; fd;s gSa] mldh lw{erk ls tkWap dh tkdj muds fo:) /kks[kk/kMh o
tkylkth dh /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr~ eqdnek dk;e djsaA
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a
public spirited person, therefore, the present Public Interest Litigation has been
filed. The official respondents are acting in a fraudulent manner and are selling
the lands which is not in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed
the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has not given his complete
antecedents and have also not disclosed as to what public interest work he has
performed for the Society. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to
the notice of this Court the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others[2019 (1)
M.P.L.J. 75] to contend that the petitioner has failed to produce on record to
satisfaction of the Court such social work in last couple of years in the area in
respect of which Public Interest Litigation is involved. Merely spending money
like lawyer's fees from their own pocket does not satisfy test of locus standi.
Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Pratap Singh(supra),
has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court involving Public Interest
Litigation in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
and others[(2010) 3 SCC 402] wherein the Apex Court has laid down certain
guidelines to be followed before exercising jurisdiction of Public Interest
Litigation. The guidelines are as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively
Signing time: 2/24/2023
4:06:32 PM
(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 RP 638/2017 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 court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of
the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is
involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The court 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 court 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. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present
petition as well none of the aforesaid guidelines are satisfied as laid down in the
case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and
others(surpa). Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly,
the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The question which arises for consideration in this Public Interest
Litigation would be whether the same is maintainable at the instance of the
strangers on the pretext that they are social workers.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 2/24/2023
4:06:32 PM
10. Except the averment in the petition that the petitioner is a social
worker and the petitioner himself is paying the fees of the advocate from his
own pocket, there is no assertion of his activities undertaken in the area of the
subject-matter of this writ petition. Simple self-serving statement that the
petitioner is a social worker is not sufficient to invoke the public interest writ
jurisdiction of this Court unless the petitioner is able to produce on record to
the satisfaction of the Court such social work in last couple of years 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 petitioner is a social
worker and he is spending the money including the lawyer's fee from his own
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. However, the
individuals who have purchased the plot and having grievance may approach
this Court in individual capacity seeking ventilation of their grievance.
11. In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the guidelines laid down in
the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and
others(surpa), this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 2/24/2023
4:06:32 PM
